HM Attorney General v Pepin

Mr Pepin has habitually and persistently and without reasonable ground instituted vexatious proceedings and made vexatious applications. Lesser remedies are insufficient; a civil proceedings order under section 42 is necessary and proportionate to restrain his conduct.

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 / Judgment
Outcome: Civil proceedings order made against Mr Pepin under section 42 without limit of time.
Legal Topics: Vexatious Litigation, Civil Proceedings Order, Abuse of Process, Access to Justice

Civil Procedure Administrative Law Vexatious Litigation Civil Proceedings Order Abuse of Process Access to Justice

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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2

Parties

H. M. Attorney General

Claimant

John Pepin

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Civil Proceedings Order / Judgment

Legal Issues

1 Whether Mr Pepin has habitually and persistently and without reasonable ground instituted vexatious legal proceedings
2 Whether a civil proceedings order under section 42 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 should be made against Mr Pepin
3 Whether lesser remedies than a section 42 order are appropriate or sufficient

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Civil proceedings order made against Mr Pepin under section 42 without limit of time.

Orders

Mr Pepin is restrained from instituting or continuing civil proceedings without permission of the court.
Permission granted to continue the first claim only, provided he is represented by an advocate with higher court rights of audience.