Kumar, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs: CA 13 Jul 2006

The scheme of Civil Restraint Orders faithfully reproduced the scheme set out in Bhamjee. The statutory CRO regime it was sufficient that the previous claims or applications were totally without merit, and that the litigant persisted in making them. The requirement for ‘vexatiousness’, or its modern equivalent, had gone.
[2006] EWCA Civ 990, [2007] 1 WLR 536
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedSupperstone v Hurst and Another ChD 8-Jun-2009
The making of three wholly unmeritorious claims or applications were sufficient to support an application for a civil restraint order against the respondent. . .
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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 February 2021; Ref: scu.243101