Grepe v Loam; Bulteel v Grepe: CA 1887

The court was asked for an order restricting the right of a group of litigants be restrained from beginning further court actions without first obtaining the court’s consent, they having been accused of issuing vexatious proceedings.
Held: The Court has the power to make an order restricting the right of a particular person to issue proceedings without the prior consent of the court, where it finds that he has made repeated and frivolous applications in an attempt to challenge an order already made between the same parties. The order stipulated that: ‘That the said Applicants or any of them be not allowed to make any further applications in these actions or either of them to this Court or to the Court below without the leave of this Court being first obtained. And if notice of any such application shall be given without such leave being obtained, the Respondents shall not be required to appear upon such application, and it shall be dismissed without being heard.’

(1887) 37 ChD 168, (1887) 75 LJ Ch 435, (1887) 58 LT 100
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. . .
CitedPerotti 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 . .
CitedDenzil Williams v Jean Robertson (Wrongly Described As Robinson) CA 22-Jul-1999
The claimant had sought orders alleging a nuisance caused by his neighbour’s fir tree. He appealed a refusal of his claim which had been based upon the absence of any evidence to support it. Because of the long history of complaints between 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 . .
CitedK v K FD 21-Apr-2015
F and M had been involved in protracted and bitter litigation on their divorce. They had come each to seek the committal of the other for alleged perjury and otherwise, but those applications were not being pursued.
Held: The father’s . .
CitedBhamjee 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

Leading Case

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.183337