Attorney General v Vaidya

Dr Vaidya has habitually and persistently and without reasonable grounds instituted vexatious civil proceedings and made vexatious applications, including in employment tribunals, justifying a Section 42 order, which should also prohibit him from acting as a representative or McKenzie Friend.

Parties: Appellant: HM Attorney General; Respondent: Dr Vaidya
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 20 July 2017
Procedural Posture: Application for Civil Proceedings Order (vexatious Litigant) / Judgment
Outcome: Section 42 order granted against Dr Vaidya.
Legal Topics: Vexatious Litigation, Civil Restraint Orders, Employment Tribunal Jurisdiction, Mc Kenzie Friend Restrictions

Civil Procedure Employment Law Vexatious Litigation Civil Restraint Orders Employment Tribunal Jurisdiction Mc Kenzie Friend Restrictions

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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2

Parties

HM Attorney General

Appellant

Dr Vaidya

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Civil Proceedings Order (vexatious Litigant) / Judgment

Legal Issues

1 Whether Dr Vaidya has habitually and persistently instituted vexatious civil proceedings without reasonable grounds under Section 42 of the Senior Courts Act 1981
2 Whether a Section 42 order should extend to prohibiting Dr Vaidya from acting as a representative or McKenzie Friend

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Section 42 order granted against Dr Vaidya.

Orders

Dr Vaidya is prohibited from instituting or making applications in civil courts and tribunals, including the Employment Tribunal and Employment Appeal Tribunal, without leave of the court.
Dr Vaidya is prohibited from acting as a representative or McKenzie Friend in any court or tribunal.