Vexatious litigant needs leave of court or judge to appeal from decision of a rent tribunal
This was an
application by Mrs Dorothy Becker, of Warnborough Road, Oxford, who sought to
lodge notice of appeal against a decision of the Thames Valley Rent Tribunal
without obtaining leave of the High Court, as required by an order made against
her in March 1969 on an application by the Attorney-General under section 51 of
the Supreme Court of Judicature Consolidation Act 1925.
Mrs Becker
appeared in person. Mr H K Woolf (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor)
appeared as amicus curiae.
Giving the
first judgment, EVELEIGH J said that the applicant claimed to be entitled to
appeal to the High Court against a decision of the respondent tribunal under
section 13 of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1971, notwithstanding an order
made against her in March 1969 under section 51 of the Supreme Court of
Judicature Consolidation Act 1925, prohibiting her from instituting proceedings
in the High Court or any inferior court without leave of the court or a judge.
The effect of section 13, and rules made in relation to it, was that an appeal
from a tribunal must be commenced by originating motion. That being so, it
seemed to him (his Lordship) that the step Mrs Becker sought to take in
appealing was that of beginning proceedings in the High Court. Whether or not a
tribunal was a court within the meaning of the order made under section 51 of
the Act of 1925, it was clear that the High Court was a separate and distinct
court. Consequently, the applicant was seeking to institute proceedings in the
High Court, and she therefore required leave in accordance with the order made
in March 1969. It did not follow that the applicant was being shut out; she was
only being prevented from beginning proceedings if she could not show ground
for obtaining leave.
BRIDGE and
WIEN JJ agreed, and the application was accordingly dismissed. No order was
made as to costs.
