HM Attorney General v Flack [2000] EWHC Admin 422 (29 November 2000)

HM Attorney General v Flack [2000] EWHC Admin 422 (29 November 2000)

The respondent's conduct since March 1999, though motivated in part by animosity towards SOL, did not amount to habitual and persistent institution of vexatious proceedings without reasonable ground as required by section 42(1) of the Supreme Court Act 1981. The borderline between taking advantage of events and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2000] EWHC Admin 422
Parties
Applicant: HM Attorney-General; Respondent: Ian Richard Flack
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 November 2000
Procedural Posture
Application Under Section 42(1) of the Supreme Court Act 1981 for a Civil Proceedings Order / Judgment on Application
Outcome
application refused
Legal Topics
Vexatious Litigation, Civil Proceedings Order, Abuse of Process, Insolvency Act Applications, Creditors Voluntary Arrangement (cva)
Civil Procedure Insolvency Law Vexatious Litigation Civil Proceedings Order Abuse of Process Insolvency Act Applications Creditors Voluntary Arrangement (cva)

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HM Attorney-General

Applicant

Ian Richard Flack

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application Under Section 42(1) of the Supreme Court Act 1981 for a Civil Proceedings Order / Judgment on Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent has habitually and persistently instituted vexatious proceedings without reasonable ground under section 42(1) of the Supreme Court Act 1981
  2. 2 Whether a civil proceedings order should be made against the respondent

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent's conduct since March 1999, though motivated in part by animosity towards SOL, did not amount to habitual and persistent institution of vexatious proceedings without reasonable ground as required by section 42(1) of the Supreme Court Act 1981. The borderline between taking advantage of events and instituting vexatious proceedings has not been crossed. Therefore, a civil proceedings order is not warranted.

Court Disposition

application refused