His Majesty's Attorney General for England and Wales v Hardy [2024] EWHC 3306 (Admin) (19 December 2024)

His Majesty's Attorney General for England and Wales v Hardy [2024] EWHC 3306 (Admin) (19 December 2024)

Mr Hardy has habitually and persistently and without reasonable ground instituted vexatious civil proceedings, made vexatious applications, and instituted vexatious prosecutions. The cumulative effect of his litigation conduct, including repeated abuse of court process, breach of orders, and improper motives, justifies the making of an all proceedings order under section 42(1A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981, including 'Vaidya' terms, for a period of three years. Bankruptcy proceedings are civil proceedings within the scope of section 42. The order is proportionate and does not breach Article 6 ECHR rights as it operates as a filter, not a barrier, to access to justice.

Citation
[2024] EWHC 3306 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant/applicant: His Majesty's Attorney General for England and Wales; Defendant/respondent: Mark Gregory Hardy
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 December 2024
Procedural Posture
Section 42 Application (senior Courts Act 1981) / Final Judgment
Outcome
All proceedings order made against Mr Hardy under section 42(1A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 for three years, including 'Vaidya' terms; summary assessment of costs in favour of HMAG.
Legal Topics
Vexatious Litigants, Section 42 Orders, Bankruptcy Proceedings, Access to Courts, Civil Restraint Orders, Article 6 ECHR, Costs
Civil Procedure Insolvency Human Rights Administrative Law Vexatious Litigants Section 42 Orders Bankruptcy Proceedings Access to Courts +3 more

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 6 Authorities cited 27 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

His Majesty's Attorney General for England and Wales

Claimant/applicant

Mark Gregory Hardy

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Section 42 Application (senior Courts Act 1981) / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr Hardy has habitually and persistently and without reasonable ground instituted vexatious civil proceedings, made vexatious applications, or instituted vexatious prosecutions under section 42 of the Senior Courts Act 1981; Whether an all proceedings order should be made against Mr Hardy; Whether bankruptcy proceedings are 'civil proceedings' for the purposes of section 42; Whether the making of a section 42 order infringes Article 6 ECHR rights; Whether 'Vaidya' terms should be included in the order; Whether the CPR Part 8 procedure was correctly used; Whether Mr Hardy's counterclaim should be permitted.

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Hardy has habitually and persistently and without reasonable ground instituted vexatious civil proceedings, made vexatious applications, and instituted vexatious prosecutions. The cumulative effect of his litigation conduct, including repeated abuse of court process, breach of orders, and improper motives, justifies the making of an all proceedings order under section 42(1A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981, including 'Vaidya' terms, for a period of three years. Bankruptcy proceedings are civil proceedings within the scope of section 42. The order is proportionate and does not breach Article 6 ECHR rights as it operates as a filter, not a barrier, to access to justice.

Court Disposition

All proceedings order made against Mr Hardy under section 42(1A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 for three years, including 'Vaidya' terms; summary assessment of costs in favour of HMAG.

Orders

  • All proceedings order restraining Mr Hardy from instituting or continuing any civil or criminal proceedings without leave of the High Court for three years.
  • Order includes 'Vaidya' terms prohibiting Mr Hardy from acting as a representative or McKenzie friend in any proceedings.