Thakerar v Lynch Hall and Hornby (a Firm): ChD 21 Oct 2005

An order was sought to declare the claimant to be a vexatious litigant. The respondent answered that some of her applications had succeeded.
Held: It was not necessary to show that all applications by the claimant had been without merit.


Lewison J


Times 30-Nov-2005, [2005] EWHC 2751 (Ch), [2006] 1 WLR 1511




Civil Procedure Rules 3.11


England and Wales


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 . .

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

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.235499