The claimant sought discharge of a declaration that she was a vexatious litigant. The order had been made in 2006.
Held: The claimant had persisted with attempts to litigate speculative matters. The claim was rejected: ‘The Applicant’s recent attempts at litigation, right up to last year, demonstrate that her propensity for vexatious litigation remains. I am thus not satisfied that there is a sufficiently clear material change of circumstance, let alone a whole new set of circumstances, to justify discharge or variation of the Order. The Applicant’s recent behaviour is at odds with any proper understanding of the nature of her conduct. She is someone who has given assurances of good intention to mend her ways before, which assurances she has nevertheless gone on to break. Even this application had elements of vexatiousness – namely, her claims for a declaration that the Court should tell Lincoln’s Inn and Manchester Metropolitan University that she has human rights – and her application for permission to apply for summary judgment for damages against those two institutions. Thus, it is both necessary and proper to maintain the Order.’
Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.562472