HM Attorney General v Sujeeun

A person subject to a civil proceedings order must obtain the leave required by section 42 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 before instituting further proceedings or applications falling within the section. This applies to applications made in the Court of Appeal, including applications to reinstate an application for permission to appeal. It also applies where the underlying dispute concerns social security proceedings. Arguments challenging the jurisdiction, procedural regularity or conduct of the earlier proceedings cannot be examined unless the required leave has first been obtained. The statutory restriction is compatible with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The applicant was made subject to a civil proceedings order under section 42 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 in 1996. His applications for permission to appeal and to reinstate those applications had previously been refused. He later sought to pursue both a social security-related application and reinstatement of his application concerning the original civil proceedings order without obtaining High Court leave under section 42.

The issue was whether either application constituted proceedings or an application within section 42, and whether reliance on Kebilene or Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights avoided the statutory leave requirement.

1. The applications were refused. The Court of Appeal was a court for the purposes of section 42, even though the social security matter also involved a Social Security Tribunal commissioner.
2. The application concerning the Social Security Commissioners constituted the institution of proceedings for section 42 purposes. The application to reinstate the application for permission to appeal against the original civil proceedings order was an application within section 42(1)(a). Both therefore required High Court leave.
3. The applicant’s reliance on Kebilene was misplaced. The passage relied on concerned section 22(4) of the Human Rights Act and did not address the statutory leave requirement.
4. The Article 6 argument could not succeed. The Strasbourg Commission had held in H v United Kingdom that requiring a vexatious litigant to obtain judicial permission before bringing further proceedings did not breach Article 6.
5. Without section 42 leave, the court could not examine the applicant’s challenges to the jurisdiction or validity of the original civil proceedings order, alleged procedural defects, or allegations of fraud and conspiracy.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Earlier applications for permission to appeal and reinstatement had been refused. The present applications for reinstatement were refused because section 42 leave had not been obtained.