Attorney General v Saxena

Under section 42 of the Supreme Court Act 1981, the court may make a civil proceedings order where a person has habitually and persistently instituted civil proceedings without reasonable grounds. The court must first hear the person or give a proper opportunity to be heard. Once the statutory condition is established, the decision whether to make the order is discretionary. The order may be imposed without a time limit where the unreasonable litigation has continued over a prolonged period and the evidence shows a continuing need for protection of the courts and other litigants.

The Attorney General applied under section 42 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 for a civil proceedings order against Ram Pratap Saxena. The application relied on a lengthy history of civil proceedings, including repeated applications for judicial review, appeals and attempts to reopen concluded litigation. Mr Saxena was personally served and given notice of the hearing. He sought an adjournment because of a hospital appointment but did not provide the requested supporting details and did not attend the hearing.

The central issues were whether he had habitually and persistently instituted civil proceedings without reasonable grounds, whether the statutory opportunity to be heard had been satisfied, and whether any order should be limited in duration.

1. The application was granted. The court was satisfied that Mr Saxena had habitually and persistently, and without reasonable grounds, instituted proceedings in the civil courts. The history included 25 applications for judicial review since 1999 and numerous other proceedings arising from divorce, ancillary relief and bankruptcy disputes. Many applications had been refused as hopeless, misconceived, unsustainable, out of time or an abuse of process.

2. Section 42 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 permits the court, after hearing the respondent or giving him an opportunity to be heard, to prohibit the institution or continuation of civil proceedings without leave. Mr Saxena had been personally served with the application materials and had been notified of the hearing. His request for an adjournment was not supported by the information requested by the Administrative Court Office. The court was therefore entitled to proceed.

3. The statutory condition having been established, the court exercised its discretion to make the order sought. The relevant conduct was not confined to a single unsuccessful claim. It comprised a sustained pattern of bringing or continuing proceedings without reasonable grounds, including persistent attempts to appeal decisions which were not properly appealable.

4. The order was made without limit of time. The court considered that the length of time over which the conduct had continued, and its persistent nature, made an unlimited order the only appropriate course at that stage.