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 by a nominated judge, and any oter application should be heard first on paper by a judge of the court of appeal.
Held: ‘The orders have not stopped him from attempting to pursue unreasonable appeals: they have merely stopped him from reduplicating his attempts to do so. They have not stopped him from multiplying unnecessary and unreasonable litigation in circumstances where he is the defendant, as the most recent scheduled cases illustrate. And they have not stopped him from turning his obsession towards the sanctions of the criminal law, as his letters to the Commissioners demonstrate. These events show that, if he had the opportunity, he would reduplicate his efforts once he was allowed to do so. ‘
Judges:
Rix LJ, Tugendhat J
Citations:
[2006] EWHC 1002 (Admin)
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Attorney General v Jones CA 1990
A section 42 order embraced applications to or in the Court of Appeal as well as below. A person against whom a vexatious litigant order was sought could not seek to argue anew the findings which had already been made against him by the courts in . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Bhamjee v Forsdick and Others (No 2) CA 25-Jul-2003
The Court set out the range of remedies available to protect court processes from abuse by litigants who persist in making applications totally devoid of merit. The courts are facing very serious contemporary problems created by the activities of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Litigation Practice
Updated: 13 November 2022; Ref: scu.241605