"Bloomin Heck" wrote in message
...

I have come across the ECHR case of LUORDO v. ITALY and BOTTARO v.
ITALY 17.7.2003.
Quote;
Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, relied on in the Luordo v.
Italy case
The Court considered that this complaint was to be examined
from the standpoint of the right of access to a court. It noted
that from the time of the bankruptcy order it fell to the trustee
in bankruptcy to represent the bankrupt in the courts in matters
relating to his financial rights; the limitation on the right to
bring judicial proceedings was intended to protect the rights of
others, namely the bankrupt's creditors.
Such a restriction on the right of access to a court was not open
to criticism in itself. However, there was a risk that such a
system might impose an excessive burden on the applicant,
particularly in view of the length of proceedings which, in
the present case, had lasted 14 years and 8 months. The Court
considered that this restriction had not been justified
throughout the proceedings, since although in principle
limitation of the right to bring judicial proceedings was
a necessary measure in order to achieve the aim pursued,
the need for it diminished with the passage of time. In
the Court's view, the length of the proceedings had
therefore upset the balance to be maintained between the
general interest in payment of a bankrupt's creditors and
the applicant's individual interest in access to a court.
*The interference with the applicant's right had therefore
been disproportionate to the objective pursued.* The Court
accordingly held that there had been a violation of the
Convention in that respect.
END QUOTE.

How would this effect the length of a section 42 Order ,
in anyone's opinion ?.


I think the issues are quite different. In bankruptcy the purpose is to
protect the creditors. Once the estate has been administered and the
bankruptcy has been discharged (two quite separate concepts) there is no
longer any need for the protection.

In the case of section 42, the order needs to remain in force so long as the
danger of vexatious litigation remains. That may be for a very long time, as
is apparent from the cases of some of those obsessives who have over the
years pursued their hopeless cases through the courts, and sometimes via
uk.legal.

Andrew McGee