Purvis & Anor v Penny & Ors

[2001] EWCA Civ 218

Case details

Case citations
[2001] EWCA Civ 218
Court
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Judgment date
16 February 2001
Judgment text

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Subjects
Civil procedure Abuse of process Relitigation
Keywords
abuse of process repeated applications relitigation reinstatement adjournment civil appeals system prisoner attendance public funds
Outcome
application dismissed (unanimous)
Judicial consideration

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Summary

Repeated applications to reopen matters that have already been adjudicated place a disproportionate strain on the civil appeals system and may constitute an abuse of process. A litigant has no right to have concluded matters endlessly relitigated. Where an application seeking reinstatement is plainly doomed to fail, the court may refuse an adjournment and dismiss it without incurring the public expense of bringing a prisoner to court.

Factual background

The applicant, a prisoner serving a sentence for fraud and subject to bankruptcy, had pursued various civil proceedings, including litigation involving the respondents. He applied to reinstate applications that had been dismissed, although the Court of Appeal had already refused to reinstate them. He sought an adjournment, and neither side appeared or was represented. The central issue was whether the court should adjourn the application to permit a further attempt to reopen matters already concluded.

Held

  1. Application dismissed. The Court of Appeal held that the applicant could not insist on repeated relitigation of matters that had already been adjudicated.
  2. The applicant’s present application sought to reinstate applications which had been dismissed and which the court had already refused to reinstate. It was therefore an attempt to reopen matters that were past history.
  3. Repeated applications of that kind impose a disproportionate strain on the civil appeals system. They may amount to an abuse of process where the litigant refuses or fails to accept that the matters have already been decided.
  4. An adjournment would serve no useful purpose because the application was doomed to failure. It was also unjustified to expend public funds to produce the applicant from prison to attend the hearing.
  5. Lord Justice Robert Walker dismissed the application, with Lord Justice Simon Brown agreeing.

The court’s approach to earlier authorities

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Appellate history

  • Bristol District Registry: The underlying applications were dismissed before His Honour Judge Weeks QC. No citation for that decision is stated.
  • Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The application to reinstate the dismissed applications was dismissed.

Lower court decision

Judgment appealed:
Not stated in the judgment
Outcome:
application dismissed (unanimous)

Key cases cited

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Cases citing this case

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.