Stephen John Finnan has been made subject to an extended civil restraint order after the High Court struck out his renewed claim against Charles Russell Speechlys LLP as an abuse of process.
The former Liverpool and Republic of Ireland footballer alleged that the firm had failed to advise him properly during a dispute with his brother, Sean Finnan, concerning a property development business.
His original professional negligence and breach of contract proceedings were issued in 2022 and were struck out by Master McQuail in December 2023 because the pleaded case did not establish a coherent basis on causation and loss.
Mr Justice Roth dismissed Finnan’s appeal in December 2024. The Court of Appeal refused permission for a second appeal in April 2025 and later rejected an application to reopen that decision, certifying the application as totally without merit. An application to the UK Supreme Court was also refused.
In Finnan v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2026] EWHC 1940 (Ch), Mr Justice Adam Johnson found that the new proceedings sought to advance a fuller causation case that could and should have been pleaded in the original action. The judge concluded that allowing the claim to continue would undermine the finality of the earlier decisions and amount to an improper attempt to secure through fresh proceedings an outcome already refused through the appellate process.
The court applied the abuse-of-process principle associated with Henderson v Henderson and also found the renewed claims were time-barred. Although the latest claim was not itself certified as totally without merit, the judge found that several of Finnan’s previous applications had been dismissed on that basis and that the wider pattern of repeated litigation justified an extended civil restraint order under CPR 3.11 and Practice Direction 3C.
The ruling underlines the practical importance of maintaining a complete procedural record and identifying weaknesses in causation, limitation and loss at an early stage. Attendance notes, advice records and correspondence may prove decisive if a former client later seeks to recast an unsuccessful claim.
Barristers instructed on strike-out applications must distinguish between a genuinely new cause of action and a revised presentation of issues that should have been advanced previously. The decision also reminds advocates that an extended civil restraint order does not prevent access to the courts entirely; it requires prior judicial permission for claims or applications covered by the order.
Repeated proceedings can impose substantial costs on both law firms and their insurers, particularly where applications revisit issues already decided. Keeping a complete record of orders, permission decisions and costs rulings will help litigation teams demonstrate the history of the dispute and the burden caused by any further claims.