HM Attorney General v Willett

HM Attorney General v Willett

The proceedings were properly brought, continued, and discontinued; the Attorney General should not be liable for the defendant's costs as existing civil restraint orders are sufficient and discontinuance was justified.

Parties
Claimant: HM Attorney General; Defendant: James Willett
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 October 2007
Procedural Posture
Application for Declaration Under Section 42 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 / Discontinuance and Costs Determination
Outcome
Application discontinued with no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
Vexatious Litigant, Civil Restraint Order, Discontinuance, Costs
Civil Procedure Vexatious Litigant Civil Restraint Order Discontinuance Costs

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HM Attorney General

Claimant

James Willett

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Declaration Under Section 42 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 / Discontinuance and Costs Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Attorney General may discontinue proceedings without leave of the court
  2. 2 Whether the Attorney General should be liable for the defendant's costs upon discontinuance
  3. 3 Effectiveness and sufficiency of existing civil restraint orders

Ratio Decidendi

The proceedings were properly brought, continued, and discontinued; the Attorney General should not be liable for the defendant's costs as existing civil restraint orders are sufficient and discontinuance was justified.

Court Disposition

Application discontinued with no order as to costs.

Orders

  • Proceedings be discontinued.
  • No order as to costs of the proceedings.