[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> HM Attorney General v Hellyer [2001] EWCA Civ 1168 (19 June 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2001/1168.html Cite as: [2001] EWCA Civ 1168

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
(LORD JUSTICE LATHAM AND MR JUSTICE ASTILL)

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2 Tuesday, 19th June 2001

Tuesday, 19th June 2001

1. LORD JUSTICE KAY: This is an application for permission to appeal. The order that it is sought to appeal is an order made by the Divisional Court on 7th March 2001. It was a civil proceedings order pursuant to section 42 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 declaring that the applicant was a vexatious litigant.
2. On 20th March 2001 he submitted his application for permission to appeal. That application set out a number of grounds. He himself has attended today and sought the leave of the Court to amend his appellant's notice to invite the Court to consider totally different grounds. He says in terms that his original grounds were, as he puts it, daft and were not worth pursuing.
3. I have read his original grounds in detail. I do think any of them have the slightest prospect of success, and if he chooses to describe them as daft, I am not going to disagree with him in the circumstances.
4. The new matters that he would want to substitute, well out of time, are to reopen the issues that were litigated in the litigation that led to the making of the civil proceedings order. I am satisfied that they do no more than demonstrate the correctness of the making of the order. His conduct of this application is entirely consistent with the need for such an order. Even if these matters were appropriate to consider, which I do not think that they are on an appeal, I do not believe that he would have the slightest prospect of success.
5. In those circumstances since he does not wish to pursue the original matters contained within his notice and since I have refused him leave to amend his notice to raise the new matters, it follows that there is nothing upon which permission could be granted. Accordingly, I refuse permission.
(Application for permission to appeal refused)