Vexatious litigation

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.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest PI & Clinical Negligence News

Claims Portal issues simplified user guide to strengthen information security

Claims Portal Ltd has released a Simplified User Guide to help organisations and users navigate the Claims Portal securely and efficiently. The guide serves as a quick-reference resource focused on safeguarding information, protecting organisational and client data, and reinforcing compliance with the existing User Agreement. Claims Portal has asked that the guide be circulated to all Portal users within each organisation to promote consistent and secure use of the platform.

CPR 11 application required if an acknowledgment of service has been filed (Standish v Hill)

Dispute Resolution analysis: The High Court held that the defendant's failure to make a CPR 11 challenge application after filing of an acknowledgment of service meant he was deemed to have accepted the court's jurisdiction. While there is no requirement for a defendant to file an acknowledgment of service form, if they consider there has not been valid service following the Court of Appeal in Bellway Homes Ltd v The Occupiers of Samuel Garside House, once one is filed a challenge must be made if the court's jurisdiction is disputed.

Ex-PrivatBank owners to pay US$3bn for fraud case loss

Law360, London: A London court ordered the former owners of PrivatBank on 10 November 2025 to pay the Ukrainian lender almost US$3bn in compensation for orchestrating an elaborate money-siphoning scheme involving sham loans linked to fictitious commodity trades.

Service through the FPS—administrative issues justify extension of time (Nefelia Shipping SA v Mosaic Fertilizantes Do Brazil)

Dispute Resolution analysis: The Commercial Court rejected an application to set aside a second extension order for service of a claim form in Brazil. The judgment confirms that administrative challenges with the foreign process section (FPS) can constitute good reason for extending time, particularly where attempts to effect service were diligent despite complications. The court adopted a practical approach, recognising that minor breaches of full and frank disclosure obligations will not necessarily invalidate an extension order where the overall justice of the case supports maintaining the extension.

View PI & Clinical Negligence by content type :

News