Vexatious litigation

Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis

The court has various powers to prevent parties from bringing or pursuing claims which are vexatious.

Civil restraint orders (CROs)

CROs can be made where a party persists in issuing claims or making applications that are totally without merit (CPR PD 3C, para 1). The CRO restrains the party from making claims or applications either in certain proceedings or in certain courts (depending on the type of CRO) and can apply to specific proceedings or for a specific period (which cannot exceed three years for most types of CRO), which can later be extended by the court (CPR PD 3C, para 3.9–CPR PD 3C, para 3.10 and CPR PD 3C, para 4.9–CPR PD 3C, para 4.10). During this time, the party who is subject to the CRO will only be able to make applications or claims (as specified in the order) with prior

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Existing user? Sign-in TAKE A FREE TRIAL
Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Dispute Resolution News

Third party costs—Court of Appeal confirms stay pending detailed assessment is case management decision (Federal Republic of Nigeria v VR Global Partners LP)

Dispute Resolution analysis: The Court of Appeal has upheld the decision of a judge at first instance to stay an application for a third-party costs order under section 51 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 until after the conclusion of the detailed assessment of the underlying bill of costs. Dismissing Nigeria’s appeal, the Court of Appeal held that there is no presumption that a third-party costs application should be determined before a detailed assessment. The question is purely one of case management, to be decided in accordance with the interests of justice and the overriding objective. The decision, being within the scope of discretion allowed a judge, was not amenable to appeal; that a different judge would have reached a different conclusion was not in point. Where there is a real question whether any further sum will be payable following assessment (particularly where a substantial payment on account has already been made and costs are to be assessed on the standard basis), it is legitimate to stay the third party application to avoid wasting court resources on what may prove to be a pointless satellite exercise. Of general and at least equal significance to costs practitioners were the Court of Appeal’s strong comments (obiter dicta in strict terms) deprecating disproportionate detailed assessment processes and endorsing the use of sampling as a case management tool in cases involving very significant bills of legal costs. Written by Lauren Godfrey, barrister at Gatehouse Chambers.

UKJT Control Panel Report on Control of Digital Assets

The report, published by LawTech UK on 19 March 2026, provides non-binding guidance for courts and legal practitioners on how digital assets are controlled in practice. The Panel was established at the invitation of the Lord Chancellor, following the Law Commission’s recognition that digital assets constitute a distinct ‘third category’ of property. The report emphasises that ‘control’ is a factual, functional concept, centred on the ability to exclude others, use and transfer an asset. It analyses various forms of control, including direct, multi-party, smart contract-based, delegated, and layered control, highlighting that real-world arrangements are often complex and overlapping. The report notes that the absence of a central operator and privacy-enhancing technologies may limit the effectiveness of traditional legal remedies. Overall, it points to a need for the law to develop incrementally in response to evolving technologies, with the courts adopting a flexible, context-specific approach focused on how control is in fact exercised in any given system.

Professional negligence and limitation—the roll of impecuniosity in constructive knowledge (Kay v Martineau Johnson)

Dispute Resolution analysis: The Court of Appeal considered the correct approaches to actual knowledge and constructive knowledge in the context of solicitors’ professional negligence. Of note was the consideration of whether impecuniosity was a relevant factor in considering reasonable steps and the taking of expert advice for the purposes of the date of knowledge. Written by James Davies, barrister and Mediator at New Square Chambers.

Dispute Resolution weekly highlights—19 March 2026

This week's edition of Dispute Resolution weekly highlights includes: analysis of a number of key DR developments and key judicial decisions including the publication of the King’s Bench Guide 2026, the minutes of the Civil Procedure Rule Committee following their meeting on 6 February 2026 and the High Court decision in UAB Business Enterprise v Oneta Ltd (expert and factual evidence).

View Dispute Resolution by content type :  
News
Practice notes
Precedents
Q&As

Popular documents

Electronic working and CE-File—how to use CE-File

Electronic working and CE-File—how to use CE-FileThis Practice Note provides guidance on the interpretation and application of the relevant provisions of the CPR. Depending on the court in which your matter is proceeding, you may also need to be mindful of additional provisions—see further: Court

Anonymisation—protecting the identity of a person

Anonymisation—protecting the identity of a personThis Practice Note looks at the protection of the identity or anonymisation of a person in civil litigation proceedings under CPR 39.2(4). It considers when the court may derogate from the general principle of open justice in the context of

Discontinuance of a claim

Discontinuance of a claimAmendments to CPR 38With effect from 6 April 2023, CPR 38 is amended in a number of ways, including:•clarifying that the definition of ‘claim’ in CPR 38 includes ‘a cause of action or part of one’•amending the language of CPR 38.5(2) to refer to the end of ‘the claim’ rather

Transferring civil proceedings

Transferring civil proceedingsThis Practice Note provides guidance on the interpretation and application of the relevant provisions of the CPR. Depending on the court in which your matter is proceeding, you may also need to be mindful of additional provisions—see: Court specific guidance.This
Electronic working and CE-File—how to use CE-File

Electronic working and CE-File—how to use CE-File

Electronic working and CE-File—how to use CE-FileThis Practice Note provides guidance on the interpretation and application of the relevant provisions of the CPR. Depending on the court in which your matter is proceeding, you may also need to be mindful of additional provisions—see further: Court

Anonymisation—protecting the identity of a person

Anonymisation—protecting the identity of a person

Anonymisation—protecting the identity of a personThis Practice Note looks at the protection of the identity or anonymisation of a person in civil litigation proceedings under CPR 39.2(4). It considers when the court may derogate from the general principle of open justice in the context of

Discontinuance of a claim

Discontinuance of a claim

Discontinuance of a claimAmendments to CPR 38With effect from 6 April 2023, CPR 38 is amended in a number of ways, including:•clarifying that the definition of ‘claim’ in CPR 38 includes ‘a cause of action or part of one’•amending the language of CPR 38.5(2) to refer to the end of ‘the claim’ rather

Transferring civil proceedings

Transferring civil proceedings

Transferring civil proceedingsThis Practice Note provides guidance on the interpretation and application of the relevant provisions of the CPR. Depending on the court in which your matter is proceeding, you may also need to be mindful of additional provisions—see: Court specific guidance.This