Other Free Encyclopedias » Law Library - American Law and Legal Information » Free Legal Encyclopedia: Vest to Water Rights

Vexatious Litigation

original action plaintiff defendant

A legal action or proceeding initiated maliciously and without PROBABLE CAUSE by an individual who is not acting in GOOD FAITH for the purpose of annoying or embarrassing an opponent.

The U.S. legal system permits persons to file civil lawsuits to seek redress for injuries committed by a defendant. However, a legal action that is not likely to lead to any practical result is classified as vexatious litigation. Such litigation is regarded as frivolous and will result in the dismissal of the action by the court. A person who has been subjected to vexatious litigation may sue the plaintiff for MALICIOUS PROSECUTION, seeking damages for any costs and injuries associated with the original lawsuit.

Litigation is typically classified as vexatious when an attorney or a pro se litigant (a person representing himself without an attorney) repeatedly files groundless lawsuits and repeatedly loses. Under the COMMON LAW, the frequent incitement of lawsuits by an attorney constituted the crime of BARRATRY. In modern law, however, barratry is viewed as an archaic crime and is rarely enforced. Attorneys who encourage vexatious litigation are subject to discipline for violating rules of professional conduct and may be suspended from the PRACTICE OF LAW or disbarred.

Sometimes pro se litigants who have lost their initial lawsuits file new actions based on the dispute contained in the original suit. Because the judgment of the original case is dispositive, a court will ultimately dismiss these new actions. To avoid the expenditure of court resources, as well as the costs associated with the defendant's defense of repeated frivolous claims, a court may issue an order forbidding the pro se litigant to file any new actions without permission of the court.

Vexatious litigation is a type of malicious prosecution that enables the defendant to file a tort action against the plaintiff. A plaintiff in a malicious prosecution must prove that a legal proceeding (or multiple proceedings) was instituted by the defendant, that the original proceeding was terminated in favor of the plaintiff, that there was no probable cause for the original proceeding, and that malice, or a primary purpose other than that of bringing the original action, motivated the defendant. A plaintiff in such an action may recover, for example, the expenses incurred in defending the original suit or suits, as well as resulting financial loss or injury. A plaintiff may also recover damages for mental suffering of a kind that would normally be expected to follow from the original action.

User Comments

Your email address will be altered so spam harvesting bots can't read it easily.
Hide my email completely instead?

Cancel or

Vote down Vote up

over 5 years ago

The Legal Services Act 2007 is a Parliament Act of the United Kingdom.

Schedule 3, Schedule 21 and many other Sections and Schedules does make some changes to the Legislation in the United Kingdom.

The Planning (Consequential Provisions) Act 1990, This did repeal the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 whilst the High Court had no Jurisdiction Power to deal with matters under the TCPA 1971. The Housing and Planning Act 1986 Schedule 12 did repeal sections 66 to 86 of the TCPA 1971.

Section 114 and 119 of the Equality Act 2010 has come into force

Schedule 2 of the County Courts Act 1984 has not been taken into consideration when there is Official Misconduct in Judicial or Public Office

There is Rough and Fraud Justice in the United Kingdom.

I thank you in advance and wait to hear from you

Yours Faithfully

Ismail Abdulhai Bhamjee

Yours Sincerely

Vote down Vote up

over 6 years ago

HM ATTORNEY GENERAL VERSUS ISMAIL ABDULHAI BHAMJEE.

________________________________________________________________________



THE COURTS AND LEGAL SERVICES ACT 1990 WHICH CAME INTO FORCE IN THE YEAR 1991 HAS NOT BEEN TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION.



THERE ARE MANY PERSONS WHO HAVE BEEN WRONGLY DECLARED AS VEXATIOUS LITIGANT IN THE UNITED KINGDOM



THE HOUSE OF LORDS JUDGMENT

ARTHUR J S HALL VERSUS SIMMONS AND OTHERS-

IT WAS ORDERED THAT ADVOCATES HAVE NO IMMUNITY WHETHER CIVIL OR CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS-



THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IS AN EX-OFFICIAL MEMBER OF THE BAR COUNCIL AND THE JUDGMENT IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS IS BINDING ON HIM.



HE IS IN CONTEMPT OF COURT AND ABUSE OF POWER.



I THANK YOU IN ADVANCE AND WAIT TO HEAR FROM YOU



YOURS FAITHFULLY



ISMAIL ABDULHAI BHAMJEE

Vote down Vote up

almost 9 years ago

Sometimes Defendants misuse the Vexatious Litigant Statute as a tool to silence a Plaintiff and falsely accuse a Plaintiff of vexatiousness in order to avoid being brought to justice for the Illegal acts that they(defendants) and their co-defendants continue to committ. Since all Judges used to be attorneys and Defendants' counsels might have gone to the same law school as the Judges did, there are "inside" conflicts of interest and they all try to silence a Pro Per.