Bhamjee v Forsdick & Ors (No 2) [2003] EWCA Civ 1113 (25 July 2003)

Bhamjee v Forsdick & Ors (No 2) [2003] EWCA Civ 1113 (25 July 2003)

The court has inherent jurisdiction to make extended civil restraint orders against litigants who persistently abuse court processes by instituting or threatening meritless proceedings, provided such orders are proportionate and do not extinguish the essence of the right of access to the courts. Mr Bhamjee's conduct justified the making of an extended civil restraint order to protect the court's resources and the respondents from further vexatious litigation.

Citation
[2003] EWCA Civ 1113
Parties
Appellant/claimant: Ismail Abdullah Bhamjee; Respondents/defendants: David Forsdick and Others (No 2); Interested Party: Attorney-General (watching brief); Advocate to the Court: Advocate to the court
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 July 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Chancery Division; Application for Extended Civil Restraint Order
Outcome
Extended civil restraint order granted against Mr Bhamjee.
Legal Topics
Vexatious Litigation, Civil Restraint Orders, Abuse of Process, Inherent Jurisdiction, Access to Justice
Civil Procedure Judicial Process Vexatious Litigation Civil Restraint Orders Abuse of Process Inherent Jurisdiction Access to Justice

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 26 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ismail Abdullah Bhamjee

Appellant/claimant

David Forsdick and Others (No 2)

Respondents/defendants

Attorney-General (watching brief)

Interested Party

Advocate to the court

Advocate to the Court

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Chancery Division; Application for Extended Civil Restraint Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What remedies are available to courts to protect their processes from persistent, meritless litigation?
  2. 2 Is the making of an extended civil restraint order against a litigant compatible with common law and ECHR principles?

Ratio Decidendi

The court has inherent jurisdiction to make extended civil restraint orders against litigants who persistently abuse court processes by instituting or threatening meritless proceedings, provided such orders are proportionate and do not extinguish the essence of the right of access to the courts. Mr Bhamjee's conduct justified the making of an extended civil restraint order to protect the court's resources and the respondents from further vexatious litigation.

Court Disposition

Extended civil restraint order granted against Mr Bhamjee.

Orders

  • Mr Bhamjee is forbidden for two years from making any further applications or taking steps (including issuing new proceedings) in the Court of Appeal, High Court, or any County Court against the five respondents and/or their legal representatives without written permission from Master Bowman.
  • Applications for permission must be made in writing to Master Bowman and will be dealt with on paper.