Ebert v Venvill (Trustee In Bankruptcy); Woolf; Midland Bank Plc and Rabinowicz (a Solicitor): CA 5 Jul 1999

The court refused leave to appeal from the High Court. It would be absurd if, when an order was made restricting commencement of proceedings by a vexatious litigant, that the High Court should not have power to restrain by the same order also commencement of proceedings in the County Court.


Lord Woolf LCJ


[1999] EWCA Civ 1763, [2000] Ch 484




Supreme Court Act 1981 41


England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedHM Attorney-General v Ebert Admn 21-Sep-2001
The defendant had instituted over 80 fruitless actions over years. He had been made subject to a vexatious litigant order, but the Attorney General now requested additional injunctive relief. This was a very extreme instance of extreme litigation. . .
AppliedRegina (Mahajan) v Central London County Court and Department of Constitutional Affairs CA 30-Jun-2004
The High Court has power to make a general civil restraint order to prevent the litigant commencing proceedings in the County Court as well as the High Court. . .
CitedRaja v Van Hoogstraten and others ChD 12-Jun-2006
The claimant sought the strike out of the defendants pleadings. The first defendant was found to have been responsible for the killing of the deceased. The proceedings had been prolonged by procedural challenges by the defendant.
Held: The . .
CitedCourtman 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.146678