QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
London WC2A 2LL
B e f o r e :
MR JUSTICE MACKAY
|HER MAJESTY'S ATTORNEY GENERAL||Claimant|
|DANIEL FORD AND LIUBOV FORD||Defendant|
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company
190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
The Claimants appeared in person
Crown Copyright ©
"42.——(1) If, on an application made by the Attorney General under this section, the High Court is satisfied that any person has habitually and persistently and without any reasonable ground——
(a) instituted vexatious civil proceedings, whether in the High Court or any inferior court, and whether against the same person or against different persons; or
(b) made vexatious applications in any civil proceedings, whether in the High Court or any inferior court, and whether instituted by him or another ....
The court may, after hearing that person or giving him an opportunity of being heard, make a civil proceedings order..."
"(a) no civil proceedings shall without the leave of the High Court be instituted in any court by the person against whom the order is made;
(b) any civil proceedings instituted by him... before the making of the order shall not be continued... without the leave of the High Court; and
(c) no application (other than one for leave under this section) shall be made by [that person], in any civil proceedings instituted in any court by any person, without the leave of the High Court..."
"... on the basis of this evidence, and while there remains in my mind considerable concerns as to the bona fides of the Fords, I feel that on the evidence from the Fords, and taking account of the absence of positive evidence to the contrary, I am just persuaded on the balance of probabilities that I should find as a fact, for the present purposes of this stage of this action, that Captain Ford and the David Sayers who held the freehold of the property at 58 North Street are one and the same person. This is a finding which might, I suppose, conceivably have to be revisited if fresh evidence were to emerge..." (Emphasis added).
"... give such directions as the court thinks fit as to the steps to be taken for giving effect to those rights..."
And in so doing, he considered whether there was any merit in the application for a stay of further proceedings or whether, as Mrs Ford, who had by then taken over the role of advocate, had argued, that the claimants should be made to start all over again. As Mrs Ford stresses, she had a barrister's opinion, the barrister who started that case by representing her husband, to the effect that there was no power in the court to do other than as she was seeking to persuade it, and require the claimant to recommence the enfranchisement proceedings.
"What benefit this whole exercise is supposed to confer on the Fords is beyond me."