HM Attorney General v Arora [2001] EWCA Civ 1669 (29 October 2001)

HM Attorney General v Arora [2001] EWCA Civ 1669 (29 October 2001)

The Divisional Court correctly applied section 42 of the Supreme Court Act 1981, finding Mr Arora had habitually and persistently instituted vexatious proceedings. The Human Rights Act 1998 and allegations of discrimination did not affect the legal basis for the order. The exercise of discretion to impose a time-limited civil proceedings order was not manifestly wrong.

Citation
[2001] EWCA Civ 1669
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Her Majesty's Attorney General; Defendant/appellant: Krishan Kumar Arora
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 October 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal
Outcome
Application for permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Vexatious Litigant Orders, Section 42 Supreme Court Act 1981, Human Rights Act 1998, Judicial Discretion
Civil Procedure Vexatious Litigant Orders Section 42 Supreme Court Act 1981 Human Rights Act 1998 Judicial Discretion

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty's Attorney General

Claimant/respondent

Krishan Kumar Arora

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Divisional Court was correct to make a civil proceedings order against Mr Arora under section 42 of the Supreme Court Act 1981
  2. 2 Whether the Human Rights Act 1998 or allegations of judicial discrimination affect the validity of the order

Ratio Decidendi

The Divisional Court correctly applied section 42 of the Supreme Court Act 1981, finding Mr Arora had habitually and persistently instituted vexatious proceedings. The Human Rights Act 1998 and allegations of discrimination did not affect the legal basis for the order. The exercise of discretion to impose a time-limited civil proceedings order was not manifestly wrong.

Court Disposition

Application for permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • No order for costs