Attorney General v Burgess

Attorney General v Burgess

Mr Burgess has habitually and persistently instituted vexatious proceedings and applications without reasonable grounds, and an all proceedings order of indefinite duration is necessary to prevent further abuse of the court process.

Parties
Claimant: Her Majesty's Attorney-General; Defendant: Ralph Burgess
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 July 2004
Procedural Posture
Application / Final Hearing
Outcome
application granted
Legal Topics
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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty's Attorney-General

Claimant

Ralph Burgess

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application / Final Hearing

  1. 1 Whether Mr Burgess has habitually and persistently instituted vexatious proceedings without reasonable grounds
  2. 2 Whether an all proceedings order under section 42 Supreme Court Act 1981 should be made

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Burgess has habitually and persistently instituted vexatious proceedings and applications without reasonable grounds, and an all proceedings order of indefinite duration is necessary to prevent further abuse of the court process.

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.