England and Wales Case Law

His Majesty's Attorney General for England and Wales v Alvida Harrold

The court found that Mrs Harrold had habitually and persistently instituted vexatious proceedings and applications over nearly two decades, primarily against the Trust and NMC, with little or no merit and in defiance of previous court orders. The statutory criteria for a civil proceedings order were met. The order is proportionate and does not extinguish her Article 6 rights, as she may still seek leave to bring proceedings. Applications for adjournment, disclosure, and joinder were refused as they were either repetitive, lacked merit, or unnecessary for the fair resolution of the application.

Source excerpt

• Vexatious litigation
• Civil restraint orders
• Access to justice
• Article 6 echr
• Joinder of parties
• Disclosure

Read case analysis

Attorney General v Sandra Messi

The Employment Appeal Tribunal granted a restriction of proceedings order against Ms Sandra Messi, finding a long pattern of vexatious employment tribunal litigation.

• Vexatious litigation
• Restriction of proceedings
• Employment tribunals
• Interim relief
• Discrimination
• Whistleblowing

Read case analysis

His Majesty's Attorney General for England and Wales v Harrold

His Majesty's Attorney General for England and Wales v Harrold [2026] EWHC 205 (Admin) (05 February 2026)

The High Court made a civil proceedings order against Alvida Harrold under section 42 of the Senior Courts Act 1981, finding her litigation vexatious and persistent.

• Vexatious litigation
• Civil restraint orders
• Access to justice
• Article 6 echr
• Joinder of parties
• Vexatious-litigation

Read case analysis

Mother v Father (Private Law Proceedings; Extended Civil Restraint Order)

The Family Court made an extended civil restraint order against the father after multiple applications were declared totally without merit in ongoing private-law children proceedings.

• Civil restraint orders
• Vexatious litigation
• Child contact
• Appeals
• Civil-restraint-orders
• Vexatious-litigation

Read case analysis

Anthony Alexander v HM Attorney General

There are no entirely new circumstances warranting discharge or variation of the section 42 order. Passage of time and compliance do not constitute such circumstances. The order continues to serve its intended purpose as an effective filter against vexatious litigation, and Mr Alexander retains access to justice subject to permission.

Source excerpt

• Vexatious litigation
• Civil restraint orders
• Section 42 orders
• Access to justice

Read case analysis

Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright

Dr Wright has persistently brought claims and applications which are totally without merit, causing substantial harm to individuals, businesses, and the court system. There is a significant risk of further abusive litigation unless restrained. An ECRO would be insufficient; only a GCRO is just and proportionate to address the risk and protect court resources and potential defendants.

Source excerpt

• Civil restraint orders
• Vexatious litigation
• Contempt of court
• Costs
• Anti-suit injunctions

Read case analysis

Timothy Perkin & Anor v Christopher Henry Hawkins & Anor

The High Court dismissed an application for an extended civil restraint order against two respondents arising from receivership and possession proceedings.

• Extended civil restraint order
• Vexatious litigation
• Possession proceedings
• Receivership
• Extended-civil-restraint-order
• Vexatious-litigation

Read case analysis

The Attorney General v Dr Christian Mallon

The EAT granted an indefinite restriction of proceedings order against Dr Christian Mallon after finding a pattern of vexatious employment tribunal claims.

• Vexatious litigation
• Restriction of proceedings order
• Disability discrimination
• Access to justice
• Vexatious-litigation
• Restriction-of-proceedings-order

Read case analysis

HM Attorney General v Richards

HM Attorney General v Richards [2025] EWHC 3172 (KB) (28 October 2025)

The High Court made a civil proceedings order under section 42 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 against Paul Richards, finding his repeated claims vexatious and without reasonable grounds.

• Vexatious litigation
• Civil proceedings order
• Abuse of process
• Vexatious-litigation
• Civil-procedure
• Abuse-of-process

Read case analysis

BZ v EK

Repeated applications by BZ without addressing underlying concerns constitute 'lawfare' and are likely to cause emotional harm to MN and EK; a section 91(14) order is necessary, proportionate, and appropriate to protect them from further unmeritorious litigation.

Source excerpt

• Section 91(14) children act 1989
• Domestic violence
• Parental responsibility
• Child protection
• Vexatious litigation

Read case analysis