Reichel v Magrath
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 1888 |
| Date | 1888 |
| Court | House of Lords |
Practice - Pleading - Abuse of Procedure - Frivolous and Vexatious Statement of Defence - Jurisdiction to strike out Statement of Defence.
There is an inherent jurisdiction in the High Court to strike out a statement of defence which is frivolous and vexatious and an abuse of the procedure.
The appellant brought an action against his Bishop and the patrons of a benefice claiming a declaration that he was vicar of the benefice, and that an instrument of resignation which he had executed was void, and an injunction to restrain the Bishop from instituting and the patrons from presenting any other person to the benefice. The action was tried and judgment was given against the appellant on the ground that the vicarage was void by reason of his resignation thereof with the consent of the Bishop. Afterwards the respondent, having been duly appointed to the benefice as the appellant's successor, brought an action against the appellant claiming a declaration that the respondent was vicar and a perpetual injunction to restrain the appellant from depriving the respondent of the use and occupation of the house and lands. In his statement of defence the appellant set up the same case as that on which he had been defeated in the action in which he was plaintiff:—
Held, affirming the decision of the Court of Appeal, that there was an inherent jurisdiction in the Court to strike out the statement of defence as frivolous and vexatious and an abuse of the procedure, and to enter judgment for the plaintiff with a declaration and injunction as claimed.
APPEAL from a decision of the Court of Appeal.
In an action in the Chancery Division brought in 1886 by the present appellant, Reichel, against the Bishop of Oxford and the Provost and Scholars of the Queen's College in the University of Oxford, the plaintiff claimed a declaration that he was vicar of Sparsholt cum Kingston Lisle, and that an instrument of resignation of the 2nd of June 1886 was null and void; an injunction to restrain the defendant bishop from treating the instrument as valid and from instituting any other person into the benefice; and an injunction to restrain the defendant college (the patrons of the benefice) from presenting any person for institution into the benefice. North J. on the 12th of January 1887 dismissed the action. That decision was affirmed on the 12th of March 1887 by an order of the Court of Appeal which declared that the benefice became void on the 1st of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd v Nicholls
...that the abuse that had occurred (or would occur) in this case was the same as, or at least analogous to, that considered in Reichel v Magrath67. In that case, ‘the same question having been disposed of by one case, the litigant [sought] by changing the form of the proceedings to set up the......
-
Business Software Alliance and Others v SM Summit Holdings Ltd and another and other appeals
... ... For this reason, the registrar`s appeals were rightly allowed by the High Court. Mrs Teh cites three cases in support: Reichel v Magrath [1889] 14 App Cas 665 , Hunter v Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police [1982] AC 529 [1981] 3 All ER 727 and Wright Norman ... ...
- Wilson v Commonwealth
- Rogers v Asset Loan Company Pty Ltd
-
Court of Appeal
...it is a "scandal" that by a change in the formof the proceedings a question already decided should be set upagain: Reichel v. Magrath 14 App.Cas. 665. In the present case, it319 JournalofCriminal Lawwas submitted that these general propositions had no applicationin the light of the decision......