Site icon swarb.co.uk

HM 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. He had since applied for permission over 150 times to begin different kinds of proceedings. He had come to conclude that one judge was corrupt and biased against him, and his actions had led to his being requested to leave the courts. He was interrupting the smooth administration of justice. Every citizen has a right of access to a court both at common law and pursuant to ECHR Article 6. This right of access is not absolute. There is a distinction between controlling the issue of proceedings, and physical disturbances of court proceedings. An injunction in precise terms was to be granted to exclude the defendant from the Royal Courts of Justice save as provided.

Lord Justice Brooke, Mr Justice Harrison
[2001] EWHC Admin 695, [2002] 2 All ER 789, [2002] 2 All ER 789
Bailii
Supreme Court Act 1981 42
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedGrepe 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 . .
CitedEbert 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 . .

Cited by:
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, Human Rights

Updated: 28 November 2021; Ref: scu.166182

Exit mobile version