HM Attorney General v Covey [2001] EWCA Civ 254 (19 February 2001)

HM Attorney General v Covey [2001] EWCA Civ 254 (19 February 2001)

Section 42 orders were justified as both applicants habitually and persistently instituted vexatious proceedings without reasonable grounds; repetition can be against different persons; Article 6 not breached as limitation is proportionate and legitimate; Divisional Court exercised discretion properly.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2001] EWCA Civ 254
Parties
Respondent: Her Majesty's Attorney General; Applicant/defendant: Andrew Covey; Applicant/defendant: Dr Barry Matthews
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 February 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Proceedings Order Under Section 42 Supreme Court Act 1981 / Renewed Applications for Permission to Appeal
Outcome
Applications for permission to appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Vexatious Litigation, Section 42 Orders, Article 6 ECHR, Judicial Impartiality, Bench Memoranda Disclosure
Civil Procedure Human Rights Vexatious Litigation Section 42 Orders Article 6 ECHR Judicial Impartiality Bench Memoranda Disclosure

Source-derived case record

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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty's Attorney General

Respondent

Andrew Covey

Applicant/defendant

Dr Barry Matthews

Applicant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Proceedings Order Under Section 42 Supreme Court Act 1981 / Renewed Applications for Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicants habitually and persistently instituted vexatious civil proceedings without reasonable grounds
  2. 2 Whether Divisional Court exercised discretion properly in making section 42 orders
  3. 3 Whether section 42 orders breach Article 6(1) ECHR

Ratio Decidendi

Section 42 orders were justified as both applicants habitually and persistently instituted vexatious proceedings without reasonable grounds; repetition can be against different persons; Article 6 not breached as limitation is proportionate and legitimate; Divisional Court exercised discretion properly.

Court Disposition

Applications for permission to appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Section 42 civil proceedings orders against both applicants remain unlimited in time
  • No leave to appeal granted