Vexatious litigation

Last updated

Vexatious litigation is legal action which is brought solely to harass or subdue an adversary. It may take the form of a primary frivolous lawsuit or may be the repetitive, burdensome, and unwarranted filing of meritless motions in a matter which is otherwise a meritorious cause of action. Filing vexatious litigation is considered an abuse of the judicial process and may result in sanctions against the offender.

Contents

A single action, even a frivolous one, is usually not enough to raise a litigant to the level of being declared vexatious. Rather, a pattern of frivolous legal actions is typically required to rise to the level of vexatious. Repeated and severe instances by a single lawyer or firm can result in eventual disbarment.

Some jurisdictions have a list of vexatious litigants: people who have repeatedly abused the legal system. Because lawyers could be disbarred for participating in this abuse of the legal process, vexatious litigants are often unable to retain legal counsel, and such litigants, therefore, represent themselves in court. Those on the vexatious litigant list are usually either forbidden from any further legal action or are required to obtain prior permission from a senior judge before taking any legal action. The process by which a person is added to the list varies among jurisdictions. In liberal democratic jurisdictions, declaring someone a vexatious litigant is considered to be a serious measure and rarely occurs, as judges and officials are reluctant to curtail a person's access to the courts.

These legal actions occur[ dubious – discuss ] in some countries of the former British Empire, where the common law system still remains: Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, UK, and US, which are specified below. Civil (codified/continental) law systems typically do not have a prohibition against vexatious litigation.[ citation needed ]

History of legislation against vexatious litigation

The concept of vexatious litigation entered into law in 1896 with the Vexatious Actions Act, enacted in England and soon extended to Scotland and Ireland. This was primarily a response to the actions of Alexander Chaffers, a solicitor who filed numerous actions against leading members of Victorian society. [1] When costs were awarded against him, he failed to pay. [2] [3]

The first such law outside the British Isles, the Supreme Court Act, 1927 was passed in Australia nearly thirty years later. This too was prompted by the behaviour of an individual, Rupert Millane. [4] The first vexatious litigant law in the United States was enacted in California in 1963. By 2007 four more US states had passed similar legislation: Florida, Hawaii, Ohio, and Texas. [2]

Laws by country

Australia

Queensland

In Queensland, the process for having someone declared a vexatious litigant is governed by the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2005 , which supplanted an earlier Act. [5] The Act defines a vexatious proceeding to include a proceeding brought without merit or any prospect of success, with the consequence that it is not necessary to prove the existence of any improper motive in order to obtain relief under the Act. As of June 2019 there were 26 people found to be vexatious litigants. [6]

South Australia

In South Australia, vexatious litigation laws were enacted in the mid-1930s with the Supreme Court Act 1935-1936 , following similar laws enacted in Victoria. [7] In 2010 the Rann government acted to strengthen the ability of the courts to act against vexatious litigants by "increasing the range of courts and tribunals that can declare people as vexatious". [8] Prior to that date, few people had been banned from bringing litigation to South Australian courts – by 2005, only two people were listed as having been declared as vexatious litigants, the first in 1997 and the second declared during that year. [9] [10] As of June 2019 there were 7 people found to be vexatious litigants. [6]

Statistics

As of June 2019, 21 people in Victoria had been declared vexatious litigants since the law was introduced in 1930. [6] [11]

The High Court of Australia has declared only four people to be vexatious litigants in its century-old existence, as of June 2019, [6] [12] whereas the Australian Federal Court system, established in 1976, has at least 49 names on its barred registry. [6]

In New South Wales, as of June 2019 there were 43 people on the New South Wales Supreme Court's vexatious litigants register. [6] [13]

As of June 2019 there were 22 people found to be vexatious litigants in Western Australia. [6]

Canada

Under the Constitution Act, 1867 , section 92(14), [14] each province is vested with the power to enact and apply laws relating to the administration of justice within its own territory.

In Canada, Section 40 of the Federal Court Act [15] and in Ontario Section 140 of the Courts of Justice Act, [16] restrict the ability to introduce or continue proceedings for those who have instituted vexatious proceedings or conducted proceedings in a vexatious manner.

Quebec

In Quebec, the Code of Civil Procedure is the principal legislation that sets rules related to civil procedure. Under section 46 of the Code of Civil Procedure, [17] all judicial courts and judges in Quebec are vested with "all the powers necessary for the exercise of their jurisdiction". Furthermore, they may:

at any time and in all matters, whether in first instance or in appeal, issue orders to safeguard the rights of the parties, for such time and on such conditions as they may determine. As well, they may, in the matters brought before them, even on their own initiative, issue injunctions or reprimands, suppress writings or declare them libellous, and make such orders as are appropriate to deal with cases for which no specific remedy is provided by law. [18]

Section 46 vests a very broad power on judicial courts and judges to ensure that the administration of justice is conducted according to decorum and according to the remedial nature of justice. As the courts's decisions have shown it, the authority to declare a litigant as vexatious is directly tributary to the power conferred by section 46. Cases illustrating the application of section 46 are numerous. Among them, there are: Nguiagain v. Commission de la fonction publique, [19] in which the judge rejected the plaintiff's motion for a mandamus to enjoin his union to revise the grievance that he had filed on the grounds that the motion was groundless and abusive; De Niverville c. Descôteaux, [20] where an injunction was rendered declaring the respondent, disbarred lawyer Descôteaux, as a vexatious litigant due to the multiple unfounded and frivolous actions that he had sought against the plaintiff De Niverville; and in Fabrikant v. Corbin, [21] a motion to declare the plaintiff Valery Fabrikant as a vexatious litigant was granted to the defendant, Corbin. In all of the above cited cases, a litigant was only declared vexatious following a proceeding instated by the opposite party. Moreover, section 46's scope is limited to judicial courts and judges. Administrative tribunals are legislative creations and they can only exist and function within the limits that are imposed by law. Administrative tribunals in Quebec cannot declare a person a vexatious litigant.

As per section 90 of the Rules of Practice of the Superior Court of Québec in Civil Matters, [22] such litigants are now indexed in a registry kept by the Chief Justice in the judiciary district of Montreal. Lawyer and author Claude Duchesnay has reported in May 2003 that a document on the Quebec attorney general's intranet contains the name of 58 persons who must obtain permission prior to instating proceedings before the courts. [23]

India

There is not a specific law titled "Vexatious Litigation Law" in India, the concept is primarily addressed through provisions in the Civil Procedure Code and through judicial decisions. The Indian legal system empowers courts to deal with vexatious litigation through several mechanisms. [24] One common tool is the imposition of costs on the litigant who files frivolous suits. Courts have the discretion to order costs to be paid to the opposing party as a means of discouraging such behavior. These costs can include legal fees and compensation for the wasted time and resources of the other party. Also under Section 35A of the Civil Procedure Code, courts have the authority to declare a litigant a "vexatious litigant." This declaration prohibits the person from filing any further lawsuits in a particular court without obtaining prior permission. This provision is designed to deter individuals from repeatedly abusing the legal system. Courts have the authority to dismiss frivolous cases at the preliminary stage and even initiate contempt of court proceedings against those who persistently file baseless lawsuits. [25] [26]

Ireland

In Ireland, a court may, of its own motion or on application, order that no proceedings, either of a certain type or at all, may be issued by a certain person without leave of that court or some other court, for a specified time, or indefinitely. Such an order is referred to in legal circles as an Isaac Wunder order after Isaac Wunder who made several claims against the Hospitals Trust claiming sweepstakes prizes, but the claims were found to be groundless and the case deemed frivolous or vexatious. He was prohibited from taking further High Court proceedings in the action without leave of the court. [27]

New Zealand

In New Zealand a person may be declared a vexatious litigant by a High Court Judge on the application of the Attorney-General. A vexatious litigant must then apply to a High Court Judge for leave to commence any action. A decision by the High Court whether or not to grant leave cannot be appealed. [28]

United Kingdom

England and Wales

In England and Wales there are two methods to control vexatious litigants:

His Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service maintains a list of vexatious litigants and those subject to a civil restraint order. [29]

Civil restraint orders

Courts in England and Wales have the means of escalating the sanctions against a litigant who makes applications to the court that are "totally without merit". [30] Civil restraint orders allow courts to forbid applications for court hearings without the permission of a judge. There are three types of CRO: limited, extended and general, with different scopes of application. [31] Further applications totally without merit can lead to the withdrawal of the right of appeal. Harassment of the court and court officials can lead to a penal prohibition notice, prohibiting the litigant from contacting or approaching the court without permission. [32]

Vexatious litigant orders

Section 42 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 provides the High Court with the power to make an order restricting the ability of a person to undertake litigation without leave of the High Court. The High Court may make a civil proceedings order, a criminal proceedings order or an all proceedings order.

A person subject to a civil proceedings order may not institute or continue civil proceedings in any court (which includes tribunals of a judicial function [33] ) without leave of the High Court. A person subject to a criminal proceeding order may not lay information before a justice of the peace or prefer a bill of indictment without leave of the High Court. A person subject to an all proceedings order is subject to the restriction in both a civil proceedings order and a criminal proceedings order.

Where the High Court makes an order under this section it is published in The London Gazette .

Such an order can only be made on the application of HM Attorney-General and where the High Court is satisfied that the person has habitually and persistently and without any reasonable ground—

  1. instituted vexatious civil proceedings, whether in the High Court or the family court or any inferior court, and whether against the same person or against different persons; or
  2. made vexatious applications in any civil proceedings, whether in the High Court or the family court or any inferior court, and whether instituted by him or another, or
  3. instituted vexatious prosecutions (whether against the same person or different persons).

In relation to the civil proceedings, the High Court will only grant leave to initiate or continue the proceedings or application where it is satisfied it is not an abuse of the process of the court in question and that there are reasonable grounds for the proceedings or application.

In relation to criminal proceedings, the High Court will only grant leave for the laying of an information or for an application for leave to prefer a bill of indictment where it is satisfied that the institution of the prosecution is not an abuse of the criminal process and that there are reasonable grounds for the institution of the prosecution by the applicant.

Scotland

The Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service holds a published list of members of the public who have habitually and persistently instituted vexatious legal proceedings without reasonable ground, and have been declared vexatious litigants under the Vexatious Actions (Scotland) Act 1898. [34] This piece of legislation has been repealed, and replaced by incorporation into section 100 of the Courts Reform (Scotland) Act 2014. [35] Under this legislation, the Inner House of the Court of Session can make an order to prevent a person accused of vexatious litigation from raising or progressing any civil legal proceedings without permission from a judge of the Outer House of the Court of Session. Such an Order may have a specified time period, or may run indefinitely. The published list of such individuals, as of December 2024, contains thirteen names. [36]

United States

As of 2007, several states have vexatious litigant laws — California, Florida, Hawaii, Ohio, and Texas. [2]

California

The Judicial Council of California maintains an online monthly Vexatious Litigant List [37] containing the names of several thousand vexatious individuals and companies. Orders filed from 1991 to the present are included on the list. [38] Unless represented by an attorney, persons on the list may not file any new litigation in California without first obtaining permission from the presiding judge of the court. Under California Code of Civil Procedure § 391.7(a), any vexatious litigant who disobeys the prefiling order may be punished for contempt of court.

Under California law [39] a vexatious litigant is someone who does any of the following, most of which require that the litigant be proceeding pro se , i.e., representing himself:

  1. In the immediately preceding seven-year period has maintained in propria persona at least five litigations other than in a small claims court that have been (i) finally determined adversely to the person or (ii) unjustifiably remained pending at least two years without going to trial or hearing.
  2. After a litigation has been finally determined [a] against the person, repeatedly relitigates or attempts to relitigate, in propria persona, either (i) the validity of the determination against the same defendant or defendants or (ii) the cause of action, claim, or any of the issues of fact or law, determined or concluded by the final determination against the same defendant or defendants.
  3. In any litigation while acting in propria persona, repeatedly files unmeritorious motions or other papers, conducts unnecessary discovery, or engages in other tactics that are frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay.
  4. Has previously been declared to be a vexatious litigant by any state or federal court in a proceeding based upon substantially similar facts.

The threshold for "repeated" frivolous motions or litigations is quite high. “Most cases affirming the vexatious litigant designation involve situations where litigants have filed dozens of motions either during the pendency of an action or relating to the same judgment." [41] Evidence that a litigant is a frequent plaintiff or defendant alone is insufficient to support a vexatious litigant designation. [42]

Repeated motions must be "so devoid of merit and be so frivolous that they can be described as a flagrant abuse of the system, have no reasonable probability of success, lack reasonable or probable cause or excuse, and are clearly meant to abuse the processes of the courts and to harass the adverse party than other litigants." [43] The moving party, in addition to demonstrating that the plaintiff is vexatious, must show that the case has little chance of prevailing on the merits. If the plaintiff is so determined, a bond may be required, and if the plaintiff does not meet the bond requirement, the case is dismissed.

Habeas petitions do not count towards vexatious litigant determination. [44] Vexatiousness in probate actions have a lower standard. [45]

Notable vexatious litigants

See also

Notes

  1. ↑ A judgment is final when all avenues for direct review (appeals, writs, etc.) have been exhausted. [40]

Related Research Articles

Barratry is a legal term that, at common law, described a criminal offense committed by people who are overly officious in instigating or encouraging prosecution of groundless litigation, or who bring repeated or persistent acts of litigation for the purposes of profit or harassment.

In legal terminology, a complaint is any formal legal document that sets out the facts and legal reasons that the filing party or parties believes are sufficient to support a claim against the party or parties against whom the claim is brought that entitles the plaintiff(s) to a remedy. For example, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) that govern civil litigation in United States courts provide that a civil action is commenced with the filing or service of a pleading called a complaint. Civil court rules in states that have incorporated the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure use the same term for the same pleading.

Frivolous litigation is the use of legal processes with apparent disregard for the merit of one's own arguments. It includes presenting an argument with reason to know that it would certainly fail, or acting without a basic level of diligence in researching the relevant law and facts. That an argument was lost does not imply the argument was frivolous; a party may present an argument with a low chance of success, so long as it proceeds from applicable law.

A lawsuit is a proceeding by one or more parties against one or more parties in a civil court of law. The archaic term "suit in law" is found in only a small number of laws still in effect today. The term "lawsuit" is used with respect to a civil action brought by a plaintiff who requests a legal remedy or equitable remedy from a court. The defendant is required to respond to the plaintiff's complaint or else risk default judgment. If the plaintiff is successful, judgment is entered in favor of the plaintiff, and the Court may impose the legal and/or equitable remedies available against the defendant (respondent). A variety of court orders may be issued in connection with or as part of the judgment to enforce a right, award damages or restitution, or impose a temporary or permanent injunction to prevent an act or compel an act. A declaratory judgment may be issued to prevent future legal disputes.

A writ of mandamus is a judicial remedy in the English and American common law system consisting of a court order that commands a government official or entity to perform an act it is legally required to perform as part of its official duties, or to refrain from performing an act the law forbids it from doing. Writs of mandamus are usually used in situations where a government official has failed to act as legally required or has taken a legally prohibited action. Decisions that fall within the discretionary power of public officials can not be controlled by the writ. For example, mandamus can not force a lower court to take a specific action on applications that have been made. If the court refuses to rule one way or the other, then a mandamus can be used to order the court to rule on the applications.

An abuse of process is the unjustified or unreasonable use of legal proceedings or process to further a cause of action by an applicant or plaintiff in an action. It is a claim made by the respondent or defendant that the other party is misusing or perverting regularly issued court process not justified by the underlying legal action. In common law it is classified as a tort distinct from the intentional tort of malicious prosecution. It is a tort that involves misuse of the public right of access to the courts. In the United States it may be described as a legal process being commenced to gain an unfair litigation advantage.

Malicious prosecution is a common law intentional tort. Like the tort of abuse of process, its elements include (1) intentionally instituting and pursuing a legal action that is (2) brought without probable cause and (3) dismissed in favor of the victim of the malicious prosecution. In some jurisdictions, the term "malicious prosecution" denotes the wrongful initiation of criminal proceedings, while the term "malicious use of process" denotes the wrongful initiation of civil proceedings.

In law, a settlement is a resolution between disputing parties about a legal case, reached either before or after court action begins. A collective settlement is a settlement of multiple similar legal cases. The term also has other meanings in the context of law. Structured settlements provide for future periodic payments, instead of a one time cash payment.

Prejudice is a legal term with different meanings, which depend on whether it is used in criminal, civil, or common law. In legal context, prejudice differs from the more common use of the word and so the term has specific technical meanings.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Judicature Acts</span> UK laws restructuring the English-Welsh court system (1873–1899)

In the history of the courts of England and Wales, the Judicature Acts were a series of acts of Parliament, beginning in the 1870s, which aimed to fuse the hitherto split system of courts of England and Wales. The first two acts were the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1873 and the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1875, with a further series of amending acts.

In law, filing is the delivery of a document to the clerk of a court and the acceptance of the document by the clerk for placement into the official record. If a document is delivered to the clerk and is temporarily placed or deposited with the court, it is said to have been lodged with or received by the court. Courts will not consider motions unless an appropriate memorandum or brief is filed before the appropriate deadline. Usually a filing fee is paid which is part of court costs.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Julian Knight (murderer)</span> Australian mass murderer

Julian Knight is an Australian mass murderer. On 9 August 1987, he shot seven people dead and injured 19 during a shooting spree in Clifton Hill, Victoria, Australia, in what became known as the Hoddle Street massacre.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Tort reform</span> Legal reforms aimed at reducing tort litigation

Tort reform consists of changes in the civil justice system in common law countries that aim to reduce the ability of plaintiffs to bring tort litigation or to reduce damages they can receive. Such changes are generally justified under the grounds that litigation is an inefficient means to compensate plaintiffs; that tort law permits frivolous or otherwise undesirable litigation to crowd the court system; or that the fear of litigation can serve to curtail innovation, raise the cost of consumer goods or insurance premiums for suppliers of services, and increase legal costs for businesses. Tort reform has primarily been prominent in common law jurisdictions, where criticism of judge-made rules regarding tort actions manifests in calls for statutory reform by the legislature.

Joly v Pelletier is a 1999 Ontario Superior Court of Justice case that dealt with the requirements of legal standing and vexatious litigants. The plaintiff, Rene Joly, filed a lawsuit in that was dismissed by Justice Epstein as frivolous or vexatious or an abuse of the process of the Court.

Pro se legal representation means to argue on one's own behalf in a legal proceeding, as a defendant or plaintiff in civil cases, or a defendant in criminal cases, rather than have representation from counsel or an attorney.

In law, frivolous or vexatious is a term used to challenge a complaint or a legal proceeding being heard as lacking in merit, or to deny, dismiss or strike out any ensuing judicial or non-judicial processes.

A poor person is a legal status in many countries 1 in the world that allows an individual to have fair court even if they do not have enough financial savings. If a judge believes that the accused person is without the financial resources to pay the costs of a court action or proceeding, he/she may apply for in forma pauperis (IFP) status. It is a Latin term for "in the manner of a pauper," which describes a litigant who is excused by a court from paying filing fees and court costs because they cannot afford to do so.

An Isaac Wunder order is an order issued by an Irish court restricting the ability of a vexatious litigant to institute legal proceedings without leave from that or another court, whether for a specified period of time or indefinitely. It is named after Isaac Wunder, an Irishman who became notorious for instituting a number of actions that were subsequently deemed by the court to be frivolous or vexatious.

In the law of England and Wales, a civil restraint order (CRO) is a court order intended to prevent vexatious litigation. Courts have the means of escalating the sanctions against a litigant who makes applications to the court that are "totally without merit":

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Special motion to strike</span> Legal motion intended to stop SLAPP lawsuits

The special motion to strike is a motion authorized by the California Code of Civil Procedure intended to stop strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs). They were created in 1992 with the purpose of encouraging participation in matters of public significance. The motion allows a litigant to strike a complaint when it arises from conduct in furtherance of the moving party's rights to petition or free speech in connection with a public issue. If the moving party prevails, they are entitled to attorney's fees by right. The motion is codified in section 425.16 of the Code. More than 300 published court opinions have interpreted and applied California's anti-SLAPP law. Because the right to file a special motion to strike is substantive immunity to suit, rather than a merely procedural right, federal courts apply the law to state law claims they hear under diversity jurisdiction.

References

  1. ↑ Brian Simpson (2003). "The Rule of Law in International Affairs". Proceedings of the British Academy. 125: 222.
  2. 1 2 3 Alvin Stauber, "Litigious Paranoia: Confronting And Controlling Abusive Litigation In The United States, The United Kingdom", International Review of Business Research Papers, Vol.5 No. 1 January 2009, pp.11- 27.
  3. ↑ Taggart, Michael (2004). "Alexander Chaffers and the Genesis of the Vexatious Actions Act 1896". The Cambridge Law Journal. 63 (3): 656684. doi:10.1017/S0008197304006713 (inactive 28 December 2024). S2CID   145410283.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of December 2024 (link)
  4. ↑ Rosalind Dixon; George Williams (2015). The High Court, the Constitution and Australian Politics. Cambridge University Press. p. 133. ISBN   9781107043664.
  5. ↑ "Vexatious litigants". courts.qld.gov.au. November 28, 2007. Archived from the original on March 26, 2011. Retrieved April 6, 2014.
  6. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Dillon, Meagan (2019-06-26). "Meet some of Australia's most high-profile legal pests". ABC News. Retrieved 2020-08-20.
  7. ↑ Stauber, Alvin. (2009). "Litigious Paranoia: Confronting And Controlling Abusive Litigation In The United States, The United Kingdom, And Australia Archived 2012-06-18 at the Wayback Machine ". International Review of Business Research Papers. 5:11. p22. Retrieved 5 January 2013.
  8. ↑ McGregor, Ken. (6 November 2010). "Government targets serial litigants clogging up the courts Archived 2010-11-08 at the Wayback Machine ". The Advertiser , Adelaide, South Australia. Retrieved 5 January 2013.
  9. ↑ Henderson, Nick. (19 July 2005). "Legal History in the Making as Woman Faces Courts Ban: Litigant has her day in court – maybe for the last time." The Advertiser, Adelaide, South Australia. p10.
  10. ↑ Hough, Andrew. (12 November 2005). "Serial litigant barred". The Advertiser, Adelaide, South Australia. p25.
  11. 1 2 Shiel, Fergus (2006-04-10). "Annoying litigant is back". The Age . Melbourne. Archived from the original on 2008-11-19. Retrieved 2008-07-06.
  12. ↑ Barnett, Katy (28 March 2019). "High Court declares fourth ever vexatious litigant". Legalwise Seminars. Archived from the original on 2020-04-12. Retrieved 2020-08-20.
  13. ↑ "Vexatious Proceedings". Supreme Court of New South Wales. April 15, 2016. Archived from the original on 2016-08-11. Retrieved July 31, 2016.
  14. ↑ "Legislative Authority of Parliament of Canada". Archived from the original on 2006-06-14. Retrieved 2008-07-06.
  15. ↑ Federal Courts Act , R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7, s. 40
  16. ↑ "Law Document English View | Ontario.ca". E-laws.gov.on.ca. 24 July 2014. Archived from the original on 2015-04-03. Retrieved 2016-12-30.
  17. ↑ L.R.Q., ch. C-25, s. 46
  18. ↑ Code of civil procedure, L.R.Q., ch. C-25, s. 46
  19. ↑ [1996] R.J.Q. 3009
  20. ↑ Niverville c. Descôteaux, 1997 CanLII 8240 (7 February 1997), Superior Court (Quebec,Canada)
  21. ↑ Fabrikant v. Corbin, 2000 CanLII 17779 (30 May 2000), Superior Court (Quebec,Canada)
  22. ↑ L.R.Q., ch. C-25, r. 8
  23. ↑ Claude DUCHESNAY, « Se représenter seul », Congrès du Barreau du Québec, Compte rendu des activités de formation, Le Journal Barreau, édition du 1 er août 2002, p. VII et VIII
  24. ↑ Johari, Aarefa (2015-07-27). "Even without a law against 'vexatious litigation', Indian courts often give PILs a hard time". Scroll.in. Retrieved 2023-11-06.
  25. ↑ Bureau, The Hindu (2022-10-10). "HC requests A-G to consider invoking Vexatious Litigation (Prevention) Act, 1949 and prohibit a litigant from filing cases before any court". The Hindu. ISSN   0971-751X . Retrieved 2023-11-06.{{cite news}}: |last= has generic name (help)
  26. ↑ Jain, Mehal (2022-06-28). "'Abuse Of Process, Frivolous Litigation' : Supreme Court Affirms Cost Of Rs 5 Lakhs Imposed On Litigant". Live Law. Retrieved 2023-11-06.
  27. ↑ "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on July 21, 2011. Retrieved June 18, 2011.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  28. ↑ "Section 88B of the Judicature Act 1908". Archived from the original on 2013-02-22. Retrieved 9 May 2012.
  29. ↑ "List of vexatious litigants (England and Wales)". HM Courts Service. Archived from the original on 2012-01-28. Retrieved 2012-02-03.
  30. ↑ Civil Procedure Rules , Practice Direction to Pt.3 3CPD.2.1
  31. ↑ "Civil restraint orders - Detailed guidance - GOV.UK". www.gov.uk. 1 October 2014. Archived from the original on 2015-12-25. Retrieved 2015-12-24.
  32. ↑ O'Hare, J. & Browne, K. (2005). Civil Litigation (12th ed.). London: Sweet & Maxwell. para 7.011. ISBN   0-421-90690-1.
  33. ↑ http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/AAC/2011/370.html IB v Information Commissioner [2011] UKUT 370 (AAC) (13 September 2011)
  34. ↑ "Vexatious Actions (Scotland) Act 1898". Legislation.gov.uk. Archived from the original on 2018-06-14. Retrieved 2016-12-30.
  35. ↑ "Courts Reform (Scotland) Act 2014".
  36. ↑ "Vexatious Litigants". Scotcourts.gov.uk. Archived from the original on 2018-06-14. Retrieved 2021-01-31.
  37. ↑ California Vexatious Litigants List (August 1, 2024)
  38. ↑ Vexatious Litigant List
  39. ↑ "CA Codes (CCP:391-391.8)". www.leginfo.ca.gov. Archived from the original on 11 September 2013. Retrieved 13 January 2022.
  40. ↑ First Western Development Co. v. Superior Court, (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 860, 864, 261 Cal.Rptr. 116.
  41. ↑ Bravo v. Ismaj, (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 211, 120 Cal.Rptr.2d 879)
  42. ↑ Roston v. Edwards, (1982) 127 Cal.App.3d at 847, 179 Cal.Rptr. 830.
  43. ↑ Morton v. Wagner, (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 963, 67 Cal.Rptr.3d 818.
  44. ↑ In re Bittaker, (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 1004, 64 Cal.Rptr.2d 679.
  45. ↑ "Cal. Prob. Code §1611" . Retrieved 2020-05-10.
  46. ↑ "Courting Trouble : A Unique Law Turns the Tables on Those Who File Numerous or Frivolous Lawsuits". Articles.latimes.com. 1995-11-20. Archived from the original on 2016-03-06. Retrieved 2016-12-30.
  47. ↑ Michael Taggart, "Alexander Chaffers and the Genesis of the Vexatious Actions Act 1896, The Cambridge Law Journal, Volume 63, Issue 03, November 2004, pp 656-684.
  48. ↑ Heggins Bryant, Nathaniel Zachery (2005). "WORKING INTHEBELLY OF THE BEAST: THE PRODUCTIVE INTELLECTUAL LABOR OF US PRISON WRITERS, 1929-2007" (PDF). Retrieved June 1, 2020.
  49. ↑ "Judge dismisses Fabrikant motions". The Globe and Mail . Toronto. Retrieved 2008-07-06.[ dead link ]
  50. ↑ "Hoddle Street killer banned from court". The Age. Melbourne. 2004-10-19. Archived from the original on 2009-05-09. Retrieved 2008-07-06.
  51. ↑ Martin-Trigona v. Smith et al. Archived 2008-07-24 at the Wayback Machine , 737 F.2d 1254. Cases.justia.com
  52. ↑ "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on June 6, 2011. Retrieved April 8, 2010.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  53. ↑ Martin-Trigona v. Capital Cities/ABC, Inc. 546 N.Y.S.2d 910 (N.Y. Sup., 1989)
  54. ↑ Forester, Karl. "OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PERMANENT INJUNCTION" (PDF). United States District Court. Retrieved 4 January 2013.
  55. ↑ s:Religious Technology Center v. Scott (1996) , U. S. District Court, Central District of California, No. 85-711-JMI (Bx) 85-7197-JMI (Bx), January 20, 1993, Memorandum of Decision).
  56. ↑ "More Judicial Quotes". Lermanet.com. Archived from the original on 2008-07-17. Retrieved 2008-07-06.
  57. ↑ "RTC, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ROBIN SCOTT, et al., Defendants.: MEMORANDUM OF DECISION". UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Archived from the original on 2011-09-11. Retrieved 2011-06-16.
  58. ↑ "VEXATIOUS LITIGANT LIST : From Prefiling Orders Received from California Courts. Prepared and Maintained by the Administrative Office of the Courts. (Orders prohibiting future filings entered through December 1, 2016)" (PDF). Courts.ca.gov. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2016-12-22. Retrieved 2016-12-30., p. 56
  59. ↑ Nick Talevski (2010). Rock Obituaries - Knocking On Heaven's Door. Omnibus Press. p. 161. ISBN   9780857121172 . Retrieved 2016-12-31.
  60. ↑ See IN RE: Leo Stoller (No. 07-cv-01435 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 8, 2007). Entered: 03/27/2007
  61. ↑ Google, Inc. v. Central Mfg. Inc. and Stealth Industries, Inc., Appeals of Leo D. Stoller [ permanent dead link ], nos. 07-1569, 07-1612, & 07-1651 (7th Cir. Apr. 2, 2008), at 7.
  62. ↑ Stoller, Leo v. Attorney Registration Archived 2017-02-16 at the Wayback Machine , no. 07-10194 (May 27, 2007)
  63. ↑ McDermott, Paul Anthony (2009-03-01). "Courts face an invasion of axe-grinders: How should the courts protects themselves from drama-queen litigants pursuing imagined grievances". Sunday Times . London. Retrieved 2010-10-12.[ dead link ]
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.