Banner Universal Motion Pictures Limited v Wiggin LLP: extended civil restraint order application refused

Mr Justice Mellor has refused a further application by Mr Derek Banner and Banner Universal Motion Pictures Limited, certifying it as totally without merit. The application, made under an Extended Civil Restraint Order (ECRO), sought damages of £352 million and orders setting aside multiple previous judicial decisions.

Procedural history

The matter originated from an appeal (CH-2024-000061) against orders of Deputy Master Linwood dated 23 February 2024, in which summary judgement was granted in favour of the respondents, Wiggin LLP and Fox Williams LLP. The Deputy Master's careful judgement ([2024] EWHC 656 (Ch)) identified multiple grounds for granting summary judgement.

Permission to appeal was refused on the papers by Mellor J on 21 May 2024, who came very close to certifying the appeal as wholly without merit. A renewed oral application was subsequently rejected by Richard Smith J on 28 June 2024 and certified as totally without merit.

Mr Banner then attempted to reopen the appeal pursuant to CPR 52.30(1). This application was considered and rejected by Trower J on 25 July 2024, who also certified it as totally without merit.

The underlying dispute

The litigation stems from Mr Banner's longstanding conviction that a format he devised for a television gameshow entitled 'Minute Winner' was copied when another programme entitled 'Minute to Win It' was created. This allegation was rejected by the Swedish courts between 2014 and 2017, and in a High Court action (HC-2016-001395) before Snowden J (as he then was).

In his judgement dated 19 October 2017 ([2017] EWHC 2600 (Ch)), Snowden J concluded that all claims were without realistic prospects of success or barred as res judicata or as an abuse of process. The action was dismissed in its entirety. Fox Williams LLP acted as the appellant's solicitors in that action, whilst Wiggin LLP represented the successful defendants.

Mr Banner subsequently pursued allegations of professional misconduct against his former solicitors and those representing the successful defendants, bringing a claim (BL-2023-001403) against Wiggin LLP and Fox Williams LLP. Against Fox Williams, the claim alleged professional negligence, breach of retainer and duty of care, and by proposed amendments, civil fraud and corruption. Against Wiggin LLP, allegations included breach of duty to the court, dishonesty, fraud, deceit, perjury, racism and discrimination. Damages totalling £55 million were sought, plus aggravated and exemplary damages.

The extended civil restraint order

Following Mr Banner's application dated 6 May 2025 seeking to set aside Richard Smith J's order and relist the permission hearing, Mellor J made an ECRO on 23 May 2025 against Mr Banner and his company. The judgement explaining this decision is reported at [2025] EWHC 1287 (Ch).

Mr Banner applied to set aside, vary or stay the ECRO by application dated 29 May 2025. This was refused and certified as totally without merit by order dated 2 July 2025 (revised on 4 July 2025). The court noted that the grounds rehearsed the same complaints already considered multiple times by numerous judges, and reinforced the finding that Mr Banner simply refuses to take 'no' as the answer.

A further order dated 7 July 2025 addressed continued correspondence from Mr Banner, treating it as an application for permission to appeal against the ECRO but refusing permission. The order made clear that the appeal was at an end and no further applications would be entertained.

The latest application

Notwithstanding these clear rulings, Mr Banner continued to bombard the court with communications. On 4 December 2025, he sent a document entitled 'Provisional Breakdown of Compensation Demands' totalling £342,600,000, subsequently increased to £352,000,000 in a draft order filed on 19 December 2025.

The demands comprised sums for 'void orders', alleged unfair treatment and discrimination, professional negligence, loss of earnings related to intellectual property, consequential damages and punitive damages. Mr Banner also sought orders setting aside all previous court orders, recognition of intellectual property rights, and injunctions against exploitation of his claimed properties.

On 4 January 2026 and 8 January 2026, Mr Banner requested urgent approval and sealing of his draft order, noting that the defendants had not filed any objection. He repeated this request on 23 January 2026 and 27 January 2026, the latter communication prompting the present judgement.

The court's determination

Mellor J treated the recent communications as an application under the ECRO seeking to set aside all previous orders and for judgement in favour of Mr Banner's company for £352 million damages. This application was refused and certified as totally without merit.

The court emphasised that under the ECRO, the defendants are under no obligation to respond to Mr Banner's demands unless permission is given under the ECRO to serve an application seeking relief within its scope. No such permission had been given, nor had there been any determination in Mr Banner's favour.

Mellor J described Mr Banner's latest demand as entering 'the realm of pure fantasy', noting that he appeared to contend he could move straight to remedies without any judicial process to prove his entitlement. All the orders made against his company stand and none are 'void' as contended. The notion that his draft order was unopposed or had any grounds for approval was characterised as pure fantasy and totally without merit.

Whilst acknowledging that Mr Banner cannot be shut out from making further applications under the ECRO, the court warned that continued repetition of the same allegations cannot be expected to occupy valuable court resources. In future, no communication will be considered unless properly formulated as an application notice under the ECRO with the appropriate fee paid.

Copyright & permissions