Attorney General v Barker [2000] EWHC 453 (Admin) (16 February 2000)

Attorney General v Barker [2000] EWHC 453 (Admin) (16 February 2000)

The statutory precondition of habitual and persistent vexatious litigation was not satisfied as the respondent's conduct, though vexatious, was confined to a short period and lacked the necessary repetition. Even if the precondition were met, the court would not exercise its discretion to make an order, as the respondent credibly undertook not to repeat such conduct and further restriction was unnecessary.

Citation
[2000] EWHC 453 (Admin)
Parties
Applicant: Attorney General; Respondent: Paul Barker
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 February 2000
Procedural Posture
Application for Civil Proceedings Order / Judgment on Application
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Vexatious Litigation, Section 42 Supreme Court Act 1981, Abuse of Process
Civil Procedure Family Law Vexatious Litigation Section 42 Supreme Court Act 1981 Abuse of Process

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Attorney General

Applicant

Paul Barker

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Civil Proceedings Order / Judgment on Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr Barker has habitually and persistently and without any reasonable ground instituted vexatious civil proceedings under section 42(1) of the Supreme Court Act 1981
  2. 2 Whether the court should exercise its discretion to make a civil proceedings order if the statutory precondition is met

Ratio Decidendi

The statutory precondition of habitual and persistent vexatious litigation was not satisfied as the respondent's conduct, though vexatious, was confined to a short period and lacked the necessary repetition. Even if the precondition were met, the court would not exercise its discretion to make an order, as the respondent credibly undertook not to repeat such conduct and further restriction was unnecessary.

Court Disposition

application dismissed