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. Without fulfillment of that pre-condition, no discretion lay in the judge to make an order. That precondition was not satisfied in this case, and an order was refused.
Lord Bingham CJ: ”Vexatious’ is a familiar term in legal parlance. The hallmark of a vexatious proceedings is in my judgment that it has little or no basis in law (or at least no discernible basis); that whatever the intention of the proceeding may be, its effect is to subject the defendant to inconvenience, harassment and expense out of all proportion to any gain likely to accrue to the claimant; and that it involves an abuse of the process of the court, meaning by that a use of the court process for a purpose or in a way which is significantly different from the ordinary and proper use of the court process.’ and
‘From extensive experience of dealing with applications under section 42 the court has become familiar with the hallmark of persistent and habitual litigious activity. The hallmark usually is that the plaintiff sues the same party repeatedly in reliance on essentially the same cause of action, perhaps with minor variations, after it has been ruled upon, thereby imposing on defendants the burden of resisting claim after claim; that the claimant relies on essentially the same cause of action, perhaps with minor variations, after it has been ruled upon, in actions against successive parties who if they were to be sued at all should have been joined in the same action; that the claimant automatically challenges every adverse decision on appeal; and that the claimant refuses to take any notice of or give any effect to orders of the court. The essential vice of habitual and persistent litigation is keeping on and on litigating when earlier litigation has been unsuccessful and when on any rational and objective assessment the time has come to stop.’
Judges:
Lord Bingham CJ
Citations:
Times 07-Mar-2000, Gazette 09-Mar-2000, [2001] 1 FLR 759
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – HM Attorney-General v Ian Richard Flack Admn 29-Nov-2000
A civil proceedings order was sought against the respondent. The respondent had commenced many actions against a particular company, which it was claimed were vindictive in nature.
Held: Though the earliest proceedings had been vexatious it . .
Cited – HM Attorney General v Pepin Admn 27-May-2004
Civil proceedings order. The defendant had commenced ten sets of proceedings which the court held amounted to serial and repeated litigation of the same points.
Held: The fact that new details had emerged which might throw new light on the . .
Cited – HM Attorney General v Foden Admn 7-Apr-2005
Application for Civil Proceedings Order.
Held: ‘This defendant has become a compulsive litigant who has lost touch with reality. Her remorseless pursuit of litigation is wholly without merit, is clearly vexatious and has perpetrated a waste of . .
Cited – Attorney General v Perotti Admn 10-May-2006
The respondent had been subject first to a Grepe v Loam order and then to an extended civil restraint order. The court had still faced many hopeless applications. An order was now sought that any future application for permission to appeal be heard . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Constitutional, Litigation Practice
Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.77976