Attorney General v Douglas

Attorney General v Douglas

Given the appellant’s history of prolific and vexatious litigation, the Divisional Court had no realistic alternative but to make the Section 42 order. The order does not prevent justified proceedings and is not unlawful or discriminatory, even considering its impact on the appellant’s legal career and disabilities.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Her Majesty’s Attorney General; Defendant/appellant: Paula Douglas
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 November 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal
Outcome
Application for permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Vexatious Litigants, Section 42 Supreme Court Act 1981, Access to Courts, Human Rights
Civil Procedure Vexatious Litigants Section 42 Supreme Court Act 1981 Access to Courts Human Rights

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty’s Attorney General

Claimant/respondent

Paula Douglas

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Divisional Court erred in making a Section 42 order against the appellant
  2. 2 Whether the Section 42 order unjustifiably interfered with the appellant’s career and rights under EU and human rights law

Ratio Decidendi

Given the appellant’s history of prolific and vexatious litigation, the Divisional Court had no realistic alternative but to make the Section 42 order. The order does not prevent justified proceedings and is not unlawful or discriminatory, even considering its impact on the appellant’s legal career and disabilities.

Court Disposition

Application for permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • Application refused