Search Results for: Supreme Court Act 1981 42(1)

Click the case name for better results:

H M Attorney General v Foley and Foley: CA 21 Aug 1997

Citations: [1997] EWCA Civ 2308 Statutes: Supreme Court Act 1981 42(1) Jurisdiction: England and Wales Citing: Cited – Attorney General v Hayward CA 10-Nov-1995 The standard of proof in vexatious litigant proceedings is civil not criminal. Even so, because the fundamental rights of the subject are affected by the making of a civil proceedings order, … Continue reading H M Attorney General v Foley and Foley: CA 21 Aug 1997

Attorney-General v Covey; Attorney-General v Matthews: CA 19 Feb 2001

Appeals were made against orders under s42 of the 1981 Act restraining the appellants from commencing proceedings without consent of the court. Held: The non-disclosure of a bench memorandum was the usual practice internationally, and not a breach of the litigant’s human rights. The right to present a case, did not include the right to … Continue reading Attorney-General v Covey; Attorney-General v Matthews: CA 19 Feb 2001

Attorney-General v Barker: CA 16 Feb 2000

An order that someone be denied access to the courts save with consent of a judge was a challenge to that individual’s constitutional rights, and should only be made if the statutory pre-conditions are fulfilled. It had to be shown that the litigant had habitually and persistently and without reasonable ground instituted vexatious civil proceedings. … Continue reading Attorney-General v Barker: CA 16 Feb 2000

Attorney-General v Covey: QBD 6 Oct 2000

In an application for a vexatious litigant order, the court asked whether the repetitious proceedings must be against the same defendant. Lord Justice Rose: ‘The question is whether it is a necessary prerequisite for the making of an order under section 42 that the repetitious behaviour of which complaint is made has necessarily either to … Continue reading Attorney-General v Covey: QBD 6 Oct 2000