HM Attorney General v Pepin [2004] EWHC 1246 (Admin) (27 May 2004)

HM Attorney General v Pepin [2004] EWHC 1246 (Admin) (27 May 2004)

Mr Pepin has habitually and persistently and without reasonable ground instituted vexatious legal proceedings and made vexatious applications, both by repetitively re-litigating the same matters and by conducting proceedings in an aggressive and oppressive manner. Lesser remedies are insufficient; a section 42 civil proceedings order is necessary and proportionate to protect the administration of justice and those drawn into litigation by Mr Pepin's conduct.

Citation
[2004] EWHC 1246 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: H. M. Attorney General; Defendant: John Pepin
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 May 2004
Procedural Posture
Application for Civil Proceedings Order Under Section 42 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 / Judgment on Application
Outcome
Civil proceedings order made against Mr Pepin under section 42(1A)(a), (b), and (c) without limit of time.
Legal Topics
Vexatious Litigation, Civil Proceedings Order, Section 42 Supreme Court Act 1981, Access to Justice, Proportionality, Abuse of Process
Civil Procedure Administrative Law Vexatious Litigation Civil Proceedings Order Section 42 Supreme Court Act 1981 Access to Justice Proportionality Abuse of Process

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

H. M. Attorney General

Claimant

John Pepin

Defendant

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr Pepin has habitually and persistently and without reasonable ground instituted vexatious legal proceedings or made vexatious applications within proceedings
  2. 2 Whether a civil proceedings order under section 42 should be made against Mr Pepin
  3. 3 Whether lesser remedies than a section 42 order would be sufficient or proportionate

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Pepin has habitually and persistently and without reasonable ground instituted vexatious legal proceedings and made vexatious applications, both by repetitively re-litigating the same matters and by conducting proceedings in an aggressive and oppressive manner. Lesser remedies are insufficient; a section 42 civil proceedings order is necessary and proportionate to protect the administration of justice and those drawn into litigation by Mr Pepin's conduct.

Court Disposition

Civil proceedings order made against Mr Pepin under section 42(1A)(a), (b), and (c) without limit of time.

Orders

  • Civil proceedings order restraining Mr Pepin from instituting or continuing proceedings without permission of the court, except for his first claim (against Surrey Police regarding PC Watts' disclosure), which he may continue only if represented by an advocate with higher court rights of audience.
  • Permission to continue first claim granted only if and so long as represented by such an advocate.