Bhamjee v Forsdick & Ors [2003] EWCA Civ 799 (14 May 2003)

Bhamjee v Forsdick & Ors [2003] EWCA Civ 799 (14 May 2003)

The appellant's claims and proposed appeals are hopeless, incoherent, and constitute an abuse of process. There is no duty of care owed by barristers to opposing litigants. The repeated meritless applications waste court resources and justify refusal of permission to appeal and strike out of claims.

Citation
[2003] EWCA Civ 799
Parties
Appellant/claimant: Ismail Abdullah Bhamjee; Respondent/defendant: David Forsdick and Others
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 May 2003
Procedural Posture
Application for Permission to Appeal and Extension of Time / Court of Appeal (civil Division) Application for Permission to Appeal and Extension of Time Against Order of Mr Justice Park
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Strike Out Applications, Duty of Care of Barristers, Costs Orders, Fees Exemption, Vexatious Litigation, Planning Enforcement, Judicial Review
Civil Procedure Planning Law Professional Negligence Abuse of Process Strike Out Applications Duty of Care of Barristers Costs Orders Fees Exemption +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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ismail Abdullah Bhamjee

Appellant/claimant

David Forsdick and Others

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Permission to Appeal and Extension of Time / Court of Appeal (civil Division) Application for Permission to Appeal and Extension of Time Against Order of Mr Justice Park

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether permission to appeal and extension of time should be granted for appeal against Mr Justice Park's order striking out claims and dismissing appeal against Master Bowman's order
  2. 2 Whether claims against barristers and Treasury Solicitor for breach of statutory duty, professional negligence, and malicious prosecution are sustainable
  3. 3 Whether repeated applications by the appellant constitute an abuse of process

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant's claims and proposed appeals are hopeless, incoherent, and constitute an abuse of process. There is no duty of care owed by barristers to opposing litigants. The repeated meritless applications waste court resources and justify refusal of permission to appeal and strike out of claims.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • Extension of time granted but permission to appeal refused and applications dismissed
  • Application to join additional parties refused