Mahajan v Waldman & Ors

The Court of Appeal may protect its process against persistent and vexatious litigation by requiring related future applications to be considered on paper by a single judge. A paper refusal may be final where the application is totally devoid of merit, although an oral hearing should be granted where the judge considers it appropriate.

The court may also restrain rude or abusive correspondence directed to court staff or lawyers in connection with litigation before it. Such an order may be supported by a penal notice, with breach punishable as contempt of court. The protective order should be confined to the court’s own process where wider restraint is inappropriate.

This second judgment arose from three applications brought by Ashok Mahajan in proceedings before the Court of Appeal on appeal from the Chancery Division, identified as proceedings before Patten J and Rimer J. The applications had been dismissed as totally devoid of merit.

The court considered whether to restrain abusive correspondence with Civil Appeals Office staff and lawyers, and whether to impose a procedural restriction on further applications relating to the litigation. It also considered whether any restraint should extend to proceedings in other courts.

1. Disposition. Lord Justice Brooke stated that each application should be dismissed because it was totally devoid of merit. Lord Justice Sedley and Lord Justice Latham agreed. The court made protective orders.
2. Abusive correspondence. The correspondence sent to court staff was offensive and accused staff of improper bias. The court ordered Mr Mahajan not to address or correspond with the staff or lawyers of the Civil Appeals Office in a rude or abusive manner in relation to litigation conducted in the Court of Appeal. The order was supported by a penal notice. A future breach could result in a finding of contempt of court.
3. Persistent and vexatious applications. Applying the principles identified in Bhamjee v Forsdick [2003] EWCA Civ 1113, the court held that Mr Mahajan’s litigation in the Court of Appeal could properly be described as persistent and vexatious. Any further application concerning, relating to, touching upon or leading to the relevant proceedings was therefore to be placed on paper for consideration by a single judge, preferably one of the judges who had heard the applications.
4. Finality and hearing safeguard. If the single judge considered a further application totally devoid of merit, refusal on paper would be final. An oral hearing would nevertheless be granted if the judge considered one appropriate.
5. Territorial scope. The court declined to restrain Mr Mahajan’s activities in other courts. A copy of the judgment was to be made available to the Chancery Division and the Administrative Court so that those courts could consider comparable protective orders if necessary.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): In this second judgment, the court unanimously dismissed the three applications as totally devoid of merit and made protective orders.
• Chancery Division: The appeal arose from proceedings before Patten J and Rimer J. No separate citation or substantive order is stated in this judgment.