Attorney General v Gayle-Childs

Under section 42 of the Senior Courts Act 1981, the High Court may restrain a litigant who has habitually and persistently, without reasonable ground, instituted vexatious proceedings or made vexatious applications. The conduct may consist of claims against different defendants and concerning different grievances. The court must assess the litigant’s whole history. A respondent cannot use the application to reopen adverse findings made in the underlying proceedings. A Civil Proceedings Order may be made without a fixed time limit where successive restraint orders have failed to prevent continuing abuse of the court process.

The Attorney General applied for a Civil Proceedings Order under section 42 of the Senior Courts Act 1981. The application relied on approximately eighty claims and applications brought by Leslie Gayle-Childs, directly or through aliases, nominees and companies, many of which had been dismissed or certified as totally without merit. Several General Civil Restraint Orders had previously been made.

The respondent sought an adjournment, which was refused, and later filed written material. He argued that his activities were explained by his role as a prison legal support worker and sought to challenge earlier decisions. The central issues were whether the statutory conditions were satisfied and whether an order should be made without limit of time.

1. The application was allowed and a Civil Proceedings Order was made against the respondent without limit of time. The court also awarded the Attorney General costs of £24,407.27.

2. Section 42 required the court to be satisfied that the respondent had habitually and persistently, without reasonable ground, instituted vexatious proceedings or made vexatious applications. The court applied the definition of vexatious proceedings in Attorney General v Barker [2001] FLR 759: proceedings with little or no legal basis, causing disproportionate inconvenience, harassment and expense, and abusing the court process.

3. The court considered the respondent’s whole history. Following Her Majesty’s Attorney General v Covey [2001] EWCA Civ 254, repetition need not concern the same defendant or the same subject matter. Numerous claims against different defendants may satisfy section 42 where they lack reasonable causes of action and the overall conduct is persistently abusive.

4. The respondent was not entitled to challenge afresh the findings made in the underlying proceedings that his claims or applications were vexatious or totally without merit. The proper remedies were appeals in those proceedings or, where appropriate, steps to set aside a judgment. That principle was applied from Attorney General v Jones [1991] WLR 859.

5. The respondent’s extensive litigation, repeated breaches of General Civil Restraint Orders, use of other persons’ names and attempted collateral attacks demonstrated habitual and persistent vexatious conduct without reasonable ground. A Civil Proceedings Order was necessary to prevent further abuse. Unlike a General Civil Restraint Order, it was not limited to two years.