Wray, R (on the application of) v Attorney General

There is no arguable case for discharge of the vexatious litigant order; the application is refused as the proposed proceedings fall into the same category as those that led to the original order.

Parties: Claimant: Bridget Wray; Defendant: Attorney General
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 08 June 2016
Procedural Posture: Judicial Review / Application for Discharge of Vexatious Litigant Order
Outcome: application refused
Legal Topics: Vexatious Litigant, Discharge of Order, Compatibility With Human Rights Act, Restraint of Trade, Defamation

Civil Procedure Human Rights Vexatious Litigant Discharge of Order Compatibility With Human Rights Act Restraint of Trade Defamation

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 6 Party arguments 2

Parties

Bridget Wray

Claimant

Attorney General

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Application for Discharge of Vexatious Litigant Order

Legal Issues

1 Whether the original vexatious litigant order was obtained by deceit or fraud
2 Whether section 42 is incompatible with the Human Rights Act
3 Whether the order constitutes a restraint of trade

Ratio Decidendi

There is no arguable case for discharge of the vexatious litigant order; the application is refused as the proposed proceedings fall into the same category as those that led to the original order.

Court Disposition

application refused

Orders

permission to bring application refused
permission to appeal refused