Bhamjee v Forsdick and Others (No 2): CA 25 Jul 2003

dls

3 years ago

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 litigants who bombard them with applications which have no merit at all. The court made an extended civil restraint order to prevent further actions: ‘A civil restraint order is likely to be appropriate when the litigant’s conduct has the hallmark of one who is content to indulge in a course of conduct which evidences an obsessive resort to litigation and a disregard of the need to have reasonable grounds for making an application to the court. Normally we would not expect a civil restraint order to be made until after the litigant has made a number of applications in a single set of proceedings all of which have been dismissed because they were totally devoid of merit.’
As to the meaning of ‘persistence’ for this purpose: ‘We do not include the word ‘habitual’ among the necessary criteria for an extended civil restraint order, but there has to be an element of persistence in the irrational refusal to take ‘no’ for an answer before an order of this type can be made’.

Judges:

Lord Justice Brooke Master Of The Rolls Lord Justice Dyson

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 1113, Times 31-Jul-2003, [2004] 1 WLR 88

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Supreme Court Act 1981 42

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited by:

See also – Bhamjee v Forsdick and others CA 14-May-2003
. .
Cited – Perotti v Collyer-Bristow (A Firm) CA 21-May-2004
The claimant had been dissatisfied with the way in which the defendant had administered the estate of his deceased uncle. The court had faced 14 applications by him.
Held: ‘They are all totally devoid of merit. They were all made long after . .
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 – Thakerar v Lynch Hall and Hornby (a Firm) ChD 21-Oct-2005
An order was sought to declare the claimant to be a vexatious litigant. The respondent answered that some of her applications had succeeded.
Held: It was not necessary to show that all applications by the claimant had been without merit. . .
See Also – Attorney General v Bhamjee Admn 8-Dec-2003
Civil Restraint Order . .
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 . .
Cited – Courtman v Ludlam and Another; In re Ludlam (Bankrupts) ChD 6-Aug-2009
The applicant trustee in bankruptcy sought an extended civil restraint order against the respondents, saying that they had made unmeritorious claims in the proceedings.
Held: The rules required there to be shown that person had ‘persistently . .
Cited – Grace, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 9-Jun-2014
What is ‘totally without merit’?
The claimant had sought judicial review. Her case had been certified as being ‘totally without merit’, thus denying to her any opportunity to renew her application for leave at an oral hearing, leaving only recourse to a judge of the Court of Appeal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Judicial Review

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.184863