Wray, R (on the application of) v Attorney General [2015] EWHC 1647 (Admin) (08 June 2016)

Wray, R (on the application of) v Attorney General [2015] EWHC 1647 (Admin) (08 June 2016)

There is no arguable case for the Divisional Court to consider discharging the 1996 order, as the grounds advanced by the claimant are unsubstantiated, misconceived, or legally untenable.

Citation
[2015] EWHC 1647 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Bridget Wray; Defendant: Attorney General
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 June 2016
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Application / Permission Hearing
Outcome
Permission refused
Legal Topics
Vexatious Litigant Orders, Section 42 Senior Courts Act 1981, Human Rights Act Compatibility, Discharge of Civil Restraint Orders
Civil Procedure Administrative Law Vexatious Litigant Orders Section 42 Senior Courts Act 1981 Human Rights Act Compatibility Discharge of Civil Restraint Orders

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bridget Wray

Claimant

Attorney General

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Application / Permission Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is an arguable case to discharge the 1996 civil proceedings restraint order against the claimant
  2. 2 Whether section 42 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 is incompatible with the Human Rights Act
  3. 3 Whether the original order was obtained by deceit or fraud

Ratio Decidendi

There is no arguable case for the Divisional Court to consider discharging the 1996 order, as the grounds advanced by the claimant are unsubstantiated, misconceived, or legally untenable.

Court Disposition

Permission refused

Orders

  • Permission to bring the application to discharge the 1996 order is refused.
  • Permission to appeal is refused.