Andrew McGee wrote:


I think the issues are quite different.

Different in some respects but not others.

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.

I note that some vexatious litigants have been given unlimited
Orders. That is effectively for life. Compare that to say a repeat
burglar. He is clearly someone likely to commit again, so what do you
propose jail him for life and be done with it ?. There surely is a much
better and less oppresive method of controlling litigants that can
and should be invoked BEFORE section 42 ?. Should that not be tried
first,
should the party not be made aware of his likelihood of being made
subject
to section 42 ?.
Of course if a man commits murder one would expect him to know that
he will likely be jailed for life or at least a long time.How/Is
a litigant in person meant to know that if he has 2 cases struck out
he will be given a "life sentence" (order) ?.