Her Majesty's Attorney General v Mahon
Mr Mahon habitually and persistently instituted vexatious civil proceedings and made vexatious applications without reasonable grounds, fulfilling the statutory criteria for a section 42 order. His conduct, especially towards private individuals, constituted an abuse of the legal system, justifying a 12-year civil proceedings order.
- Parties
- Claimant: Her Majesty's Attorney General; Defendant: Kevin Mahon
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 08 October 2003
- Procedural Posture
- Application for Civil Proceedings Order (vexatious Litigant) / Final Judgment
- Outcome
- Application granted
- Legal Topics
- Vexatious Litigants, Civil Proceedings Order, Abuse of Process
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Her Majesty's Attorney General
Claimant
Kevin Mahon
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Application for Civil Proceedings Order (vexatious Litigant) / Final Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether Mr Mahon has habitually and persistently instituted vexatious civil proceedings or made vexatious applications within proceedings under section 42 of the Supreme Court Act 1981
- 2 Whether the statutory criteria for making a section 42 order are fulfilled
Ratio Decidendi
Mr Mahon habitually and persistently instituted vexatious civil proceedings and made vexatious applications without reasonable grounds, fulfilling the statutory criteria for a section 42 order. His conduct, especially towards private individuals, constituted an abuse of the legal system, justifying a 12-year civil proceedings order.
Court Disposition
Application granted
Orders
- Civil Proceedings Order made against Kevin Mahon for a period of 12 years under section 42 of the Supreme Court Act 1981
- No order as to costs
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment