The family court has reserved praise for a solicitor operating in the face of repeated abuse from a litigant in person. In TF v DL (Post separation Litigation Abuse) a father made a total of 13 applications in relation to access to his children, the tone of which District Judge Webb described as ‘deeply offensive, homophobic and sexist’.

The judge said the father’s use of the litigation process was effectively a continuation of domestic abuse and he urged the court to clamp down on such conduct.

‘What this case illustrates is the potential abuse created by repeated applications within one set of proceedings,’ he said. ‘It is regrettable that this was not dealt with earlier as a standalone issue.

‘Family Court judges are exceptionally busy and interlocutory applications are often referred to them either electronically or on paper during days with full lists, at times without the substantive file. However, it is essential that patterns of repeated litigation activity are identified and if appropriately dealt with as an interim issue in order to avoid the experience that DL has gone through in this case.’

The court heard that the children’s guardian David Faulkner and the appointed solicitor Nina Skilton were subject to threats and abuse from the father as part of his applications.

Insulting comments directed towards the solicitor included ‘you dumb blonde’, ‘corrupt’ and ‘completely incompetent’. The father threatened the guardian and solicitor with  prison and said they needed ‘exposing and hanging by the neck’.

The judge, in his closing remarks, added: ‘David Faulkner and Nina Skilton have been subject to intense, unpleasant, personal abuse from [the father]. None of it justified in any manner. They have performed their obligations to the children in an exemplary manner.’

The case itself had progressed through the family court at Birmingham despite the unrepresented litigants having no local connection, after the father made allegations against members of the judiciary in his nearest court.

The court heard that the father had been diagnosed with delusional disorder which exhibits itself in an obsession with litigation. He appeared not to have been deterred by an extended civil restraint order, as he applied to strike this out and described the judge who made it as a ‘con artist’, also making a homophobic insult. The order was extended for a further five years.