Attorney General v Saxena

Attorney General v Saxena

Dr Saxena has habitually and persistently and without reasonable grounds instituted proceedings in civil courts. The discretion to make a civil proceedings order is properly exercised, and the order should be made without limit of time.

Parties
Claimant: Her Majesty's Attorney General; Defendant: Ram Pratap Saxena
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 November 2003
Procedural Posture
Application for Civil Proceedings Order / Judgment
Outcome
application granted
Legal Topics
Vexatious Litigant, Civil Proceedings Order, Section 42 Supreme Court Act 1981
Civil Procedure Vexatious Litigant Civil 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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty's Attorney General

Claimant

Ram Pratap Saxena

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Civil Proceedings Order / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Dr Saxena has habitually and persistently and without reasonable grounds instituted proceedings in civil courts justifying a civil proceedings order under section 42 of the Supreme Court Act 1981.
  2. 2 Whether the order should be made for a specified period or without limit of time.

Ratio Decidendi

Dr Saxena has habitually and persistently and without reasonable grounds instituted proceedings in civil courts. The discretion to make a civil proceedings order is properly exercised, and the order should be made without limit of time.

Court Disposition

application granted

Orders

  • No civil proceedings shall without the leave of the High Court be instituted by Dr Saxena in any court.
  • Any civil proceedings instituted by Dr Saxena in any court before the making of the order shall not be continued by him without the leave of the High Court.