On Sun, 6 Jun 2004 13:25:05 +0100, Bloomin Heck
wrote:


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) ?.

Have a look at
http://www.treasury-solicitor.gov.uk...nts_policy.doc

This outlines how the treasury solicitors' office will look at s42
orders. You'll see that orders are normally indefinite and that
determinate periods are the exception rather than the norm. That's
why lists of vexatious litigants include orders made in the 19th
Century

Also they won't normally consider a s42 application until there are 6
or more unmeritorious claims.

In any event an order under s42 is not a total ban as the claimant can
still issue proceedings if they get prior leave of the court. If a
person is deemed to have previously been determined to be abusing the
law where is their a detriment in them having to establish the
validity of a claim before they can issue it.

And before there are too many bleatings about the human rights of the
claimant put yourself in the position of the defendants in these
proceedings who have to deal with situations that have gone why beyond
what should be encountered - they have rights too.

Nigel
========================
Replace spamhater with n