Mathew v HM Attorney General

Mathew v HM Attorney General

The applicant failed to satisfy the court that the continuation of the vexatious litigant order was no longer necessary. The court found that the order remained proportionate, given the applicant’s history and ongoing conduct, and that the burden remains on the applicant to justify any new litigation. The application to discharge or vary the order was dismissed.

Parties
Applicant: Thomas Mathew; Respondent: Her Majesty’s Attorney General
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 October 2013
Procedural Posture
Application to Vary or Discharge Vexatious Litigant Order / Judgment After Oral Hearing
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Vexatious Litigant Orders, Variation/discharge of Court Orders, Access to Justice, Proportionality, Human Rights Act 1998, ECHR Articles 6 and 8
Civil Procedure Human Rights Vexatious Litigant Orders Variation/discharge of Court Orders Access to Justice Proportionality Human Rights Act 1998 ECHR Articles 6 and 8

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thomas Mathew

Applicant

Her Majesty’s Attorney General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application to Vary or Discharge Vexatious Litigant Order / Judgment After Oral Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 1991 vexatious litigant order against the applicant should be discharged or varied due to change in circumstances
  2. 2 Whether the continuation of the order is disproportionate under the Human Rights Act 1998 and ECHR
  3. 3 Whether the applicant is entitled to damages for breach of convention rights

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to satisfy the court that the continuation of the vexatious litigant order was no longer necessary. The court found that the order remained proportionate, given the applicant’s history and ongoing conduct, and that the burden remains on the applicant to justify any new litigation. The application to discharge or vary the order was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The application to discharge or vary the vexatious litigant order is dismissed.