Cheryl Plummer v Joshua Jacob Friedlander
[2023] EWHC 3241 (Ch)
His Majesty's Attorney General for England and Wales v Benjamin Gray
26 March 2024
[2024] EWHC 718 (Admin)
High Court
A man kept filing pointless lawsuits, so a judge stopped him from filing any more without permission first. The judge rejected the man's claims that the judges were corrupt and that he had a right to keep suing.
Key Facts
- •The Attorney General applied for an all-proceedings order against Benjamin Gray under Senior Courts Act 1981, s.42 due to habitually vexatious litigation.
- •Gray had a long history of vexatious litigation, primarily against the Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset Constabulary, resulting in multiple GCROs since 2009.
- •Numerous claims and applications brought by Gray were found to be totally without merit (TWM).
- •Gray consistently alleged judicial corruption and collusion, seeking to re-litigate previous decisions.
- •Gray challenged the court's jurisdiction and raised recusal arguments.
- •Gray's recent prison sentence for assaulting an emergency worker and other offences was noted.
Legal Principles
Orders restraining vexatious legal proceedings derive from SCA 1981, s.42(1). The court must determine if pre-conditions are met and then exercise discretion to make an order.
Senior Courts Act 1981, s.42
Vexatiousness involves little or no legal basis, causing disproportionate inconvenience, harassment, and expense, and constitutes an abuse of court process.
Attorney General v Barker [2000] 1 FLR 759
A court considering a s.42 order is bound by previous judges' findings on vexatiousness; re-litigating previous proceedings is itself vexatious.
Attorney General v Jones [1990] 1 WLR 859
In assessing 'habitually and persistently,' the cumulative effect of the individual's activity must be considered.
Attorney General v Covey and Matthews [2001] EWCA Civ 254
Restraining legal proceedings significantly interferes with civil rights, requiring a balance between this right and protecting the public from abuse.
Attorney General v Barker [2000] 1 FLR 759
Claims are TWM if they are 'bound to fail, in the sense that there was no rational basis on which they could succeed'.
Sartipy v Tigris Industries Inc. [2019] 1 WLR 5892
A s.42 order does not breach Article 6 rights if limitations do not impair the essence of the right, pursue a legitimate aim, and are proportionate.
Tolstoy Miloslavsky v United Kingdom (1999) 20 EHRR 442
Outcomes
An all-proceedings order under s.42 was made against Benjamin Gray.
Gray met the pre-conditions of s.42 (habitually and persistently bringing vexatious proceedings without reasonable grounds) and the court exercised its discretion, considering the public interest in preventing continued abuse of court processes and protecting defendants from undue expense and harassment. The court also considered and rejected Gray's arguments relating to jurisdiction, recusal, and human rights.
The existing GCRO was discharged.
Replaced by the more comprehensive all-proceedings order.
Millinder-style restrictions on communication with HMCTS were included in the order.
To prevent further abuse and harassment of court staff.
'Vaidya' terms were not included.
No evidence Gray had acted as a McKenzie Friend.
Similar Cases
Farid El Diwany v Solicitors Regulation Authority Limited
[2023] EWHC 1707 (Admin)
Anal Sheikh v The Law Society of England and Wales & Ors
[2024] EWHC 2185 (Ch)
Jon Rivers v Chief Constable of Surrey Constabulary & Ors
[2023] EWHC 1417 (Admin)
Dharam Prakash Gopee v The Crown Court at Southwark
[2023] EWCA Civ 881