Attorney General v Abiola

Under section 42 of the Supreme Court Act 1981, a civil proceedings order may be made where a person has habitually and persistently instituted or pursued vexatious civil proceedings or applications without reasonable ground. Vexatious litigation includes repeated re-litigation of matters already conclusively determined, duplicative claims and appeals, and proceedings lacking comprehensible merit. The litigation may concern different parties, provided the statutory conditions are met. Once those conditions are established, the court retains a discretion whether to make the order. The order may be unlimited in duration and controls only litigation within the jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales.

The Attorney-General applied under section 42 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 for a civil proceedings order against a barrister who had conducted extensive probate, possession and mortgage-related litigation. The application relied on repeated claims, applications and appeals, including attempts to re-litigate issues previously determined against her. The formal requirements for the application were not in dispute. The central issues were whether the defendant’s conduct satisfied the statutory conditions for vexatious litigation and, if so, whether an order should be made and for what duration.

1. The Divisional Court granted an unlimited civil proceedings order under section 42 of the Supreme Court Act 1981. The order was confined to the defendant’s personal litigation in the courts of England and Wales.
2. The statutory precondition was satisfied. The defendant had habitually and persistently instituted vexatious civil proceedings and made vexatious applications without reasonable ground. The court adopted the guidance in Attorney-General v Barker [2000] 1 FLR 759, including the characteristics of proceedings with little or no discernible legal basis, disproportionate inconvenience, harassment and expense, abuse of process, and continued litigation after earlier proceedings had failed.
3. The defendant had repeatedly re-litigated issues conclusively determined against her concerning the wills and estate, possession of property and mortgage arrears. The volume of claims, applications and appeals was substantial, much of it duplicatory and lacking comprehensible merit.
4. Section 42 is not limited to litigation against one person or group of persons. Proceedings against diverse parties may satisfy the statutory test if they are vexatious. The court referred to Attorney-General v Matthews [2001] EWCA Civ 254 on that point.
5. Although the existence of the statutory conditions gives the court a discretion, the circumstances justified an order of unlimited duration. The defendant’s status and professional work as a barrister did not prevent an order concerning her own personal litigation.
6. The court refused permission to appeal. Any appeal would have to be pursued in the Court of Appeal.