Peaceful Warrior Ltd., Re v Philips Electronics NV

The Court of Appeal may use its inherent jurisdiction to protect the court process from abuse and waste. It may require applications by a litigant to be made on paper and may restrict further applications or representation by an unqualified person who has persistently conducted litigation vexatiously or incompetently. A company’s proposed proceedings may be refused where the proposed representative is not professionally regulated, appears bankrupt, and the proposed claim and application display the same abusive characteristics. Litigants cannot choose the constitution or seniority of the court dealing with their application.

Peaceful Warrior Ltd sought permission to issue intended proceedings against Philips Electronics NV and permission for Anthony Alexander to represent and conduct the litigation on its behalf. The application was made under an earlier Court of Appeal order restraining Mr Alexander and companies controlled by him from taking steps in proceedings without leave.

Gibbs J refused the application in writing. Mr Alexander, acting in person, sought permission to appeal and also asked that the matter be referred to more senior members of the Court of Appeal. The central issues were whether permission should be granted and whether the application should be dealt with by the assigned constitution of the court.

1. Application refused. The Court of Appeal, constituted by Brooke LJ and Laws LJ, refused permission to appeal from Gibbs J’s refusal of leave.
2. The proposed proceedings bore the hallmarks of the time-wasting, vexatious and incompetently conducted litigation previously addressed by the court. The similarity between the proposed claim and Mr Alexander’s earlier claim against Philips was material to that assessment.
3. It was wholly inappropriate to permit Mr Alexander to conduct the litigation or provide advocacy services for Peaceful Warrior Ltd. Relevant considerations included his lack of professional discipline, his apparent continuing bankruptcy, and the broadbrush and defective manner in which the application described the proposed defendants and proceedings.
4. The court rejected the request to refer the application to judges of greater seniority. Litigants are not entitled to select the court or judges who will determine their applications.
5. The earlier order had been made in the court’s inherent jurisdiction to protect its process from abuse and to prevent court time being wasted on oral applications. Any further application for permission to appeal from an order made in writing under that order was directed to be listed before a single Lord Justice for final disposal on paper.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Peaceful Warrior Ltd., Re v Philips Electronics NV [2002] EWCA Civ 507 — permission to appeal from Gibbs J’s refusal of leave was refused.
• High Court, Queen’s Bench Division: Gibbs J refused the application for permission to issue the intended proceedings and for Mr Alexander to represent Peaceful Warrior Ltd.