AdvocateKhoj
Login : Advocate | Client
Home Post Your Case My Account Law College Law Library
    

Report No. 192

(v) John Pepin case:

In H.M. Attorney General v. John Pepin, 2004 EWHC 1246 (Admn) the learned Judges, after referring to the innumerable cases filed by Mr. Pepin held that only one specified case against Mr. P.C. Walls was to be continued but that all the other options referred to in Bhamjee's case are otherwise not suitable at this stage and the only order should be a civil proceedings order, under Section 42(1A) (a), (b) and (c) without limit of time; and the grant of permission to continue the particular proceeding against Mr. P.C. Walls is conditional on a senior counsel certifying and agreeing to argue the case. In respect of all others, his remedy is to seek permission under Section 42.

Conclusion: The above case law and statute of 1981 in UK (as amended in 1985) shows the care with which even vexatious litigants are dealt with after the Courts were required to apply Art 6 of the European Convention. Various steps have to be taken in UK as stated by Lord Phillips in Bhamjee's case and it is only, as a last resort that section 42 orders can be passed. These cases are certainly good guidance before any order could be passed under the legislation proposed in this Report.



Prevention of Vexatious Litigation Back




Client Area | Advocate Area | Blogs | About Us | User Agreement | Privacy Policy | Advertise | Media Coverage | Contact Us | Site Map
powered and driven by neosys