Attorney General v Burgess [2004] EWHC 2057 (Admin) (14 July 2004)

Mr Burgess has habitually and persistently and without any reasonable grounds instituted vexatious criminal proceedings and made vexatious applications in various courts. He has been given an opportunity to be heard. Only an all proceedings order of indefinite duration will be effective to prevent further abuse of the court's process.

Citation: [2004] EWHC 2057 (Admin)
Parties: Claimant: Her Majesty's Attorney-General; Defendant: Ralph Burgess
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 14 July 2004
Procedural Posture: Application Under Section 42 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 / Final Hearing
Outcome: application granted
Legal Topics: Vexatious Litigation, All Proceedings Order, Section 42 Supreme Court Act 1981

Civil Procedure Criminal Procedure Vexatious Litigation All Proceedings Order Section 42 Supreme Court Act 1981

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 11 Party arguments 2

Parties

Her Majesty's Attorney-General

Claimant

Ralph Burgess

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application Under Section 42 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 / Final Hearing

Legal Issues

1 Whether Mr Burgess has habitually and persistently and without any reasonable ground instituted vexatious civil or criminal proceedings or made vexatious applications
2 Whether an all proceedings order should be made against Mr Burgess under section 42 of the Supreme Court Act 1981

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

application granted

Orders

An all proceedings order of indefinite duration is made against Mr Burgess under section 42 of the Supreme Court Act 1981.