Attorney General v Durlacher [2004] EWHC 222 (Admin) (27 January 2004)

Attorney General v Durlacher [2004] EWHC 222 (Admin) (27 January 2004)

The respondent's pattern of unsuccessful and vexatious litigation justifies an interim injunction in the same terms as a civil proceedings order, pending further order, due to his inability to attend and uncertain prognosis.

Citation
[2004] EWHC 222 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: HM Attorney General; Defendant: Paul Durlacher
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 January 2004
Procedural Posture
Application for Civil Proceedings Order / Interlocutory Hearing
Outcome
application adjourned; interim injunction granted
Legal Topics
Vexatious Litigation, Civil Proceedings Order, Interim Injunction
Civil Procedure Vexatious Litigation Civil Proceedings Order Interim Injunction

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

Parties

HM Attorney General

Claimant

Paul Durlacher

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Civil Proceedings Order / Interlocutory Hearing

Legal Issues

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

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent's pattern of unsuccessful and vexatious litigation justifies an interim injunction in the same terms as a civil proceedings order, pending further order, due to his inability to attend and uncertain prognosis.

Court Disposition

application adjourned; interim injunction granted

Orders

  • Interlocutory injunction granted under section 37(1) of the Supreme Court Act 1981 in the same terms as an order under section 42(1)(a), to remain in force until further order
  • Liberty to apply