B v B (Unmeritorious Applications)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 1998 |
| Year | 1998 |
| Date | 1998 |
| Court | Family Division |
Jurisdiction – Power to prevent unmeritorious applications – Order that party be prohibited from making further applications without leave of court – Form of order.
In divorce proceedings ancillary matters were dealt with in June 1996. The wife, acting as a litigant in person, unsuccessfully appealed the order. There were further hearings and each time the wife appealed unsuccessfully. On the third occasion the question arose as to whether the wife should be prevented from commencing any further applications without the leave of the court.
Held – Where a party to ancillary relief proceedings acting as a litigant in person made it abundantly clear that they intended to continue to litigate by every means possible in an attempt to reopen the issues and the judge was satisfied that unless there was some curb they would continue to bring unmeritorious applications and appeals in respect of matters which continually incurred costs, dissipated the funds of the parties and had no justification whatsoever, it was proper, appropriate and necessary for there to be an order that the party be not allowed to make any further applications in the proceedings without the leave of the court.
__________________
a The form of the order, as approved by the Court of Appeal in Re Gardner [1994] CA Transcript 2047, is set out at p 652–653
___________________
Cases referred to in judgmentGardner, Re [1994] CA Transcript 2047.
Grepe (J S) v Loam, Bulteel v J Grepe (1887) 37 Ch 168, CA.
ApplicationThe solicitor acting on behalf of the husband applied that the wife, who was acting as a litigant in person, be debarred from making further applications without the leave of the court, following the wife bringing frequent, unsuccessful and unmeritorious appeals in respect of various orders made during the course of the ancillary relief proceedings. The case was heard and judgment was given in chambers. The case is reported with the permission of Bracewell J. The facts are set out in the judgment.
Richard MacMillan, solicitor of Ashton Bond Gigg, Nottingham for the husband.
The wife appeared in person.
BRACEWELL J.In this case the solicitor acting on behalf of Mr B has applied that the respondent, Mrs B, who is the appellant in these proceedings, be debarred from making any further application to the court without first obtaining the leave of the court and that if notice of application shall be given by the respondent without first obtaining such leave the petitioner shall not be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harris v Harris; Attorney General v Harris
...v Staffordshire CC [1905] 1 Ch 336. A-G v Times Newspapers Ltd[2001] EWCA Civ 97, [2001] 1 WLR 885. B v B (unmeritorious applications) [1998] 3 FCR 650, [1999] 1 FLR B v UK[2001] 2 FCR 221, ECt HR. Barfod v Denmark (1989) 13 EHRR 493, ECt HR. Bodden v Comr of Police of the Metropolis [1990]......
-
AB v Jlb
...be summarily dismissed. In the latter connection he refers me to cases such as Re B (Minors) (Contact) [1994] 2 FLR 1 and B v B (Unmeritorious Applications) [1999] 1 FLR 505: see the discussion in the Family Court Practice 2008 at pages 2090–1. 21 The mother's response to this is that she s......