نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
نویسندگان
1 دانشجوی دکتری، گروه علوم انسانی، دانشکده حقوق، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد تهران جنوب، تهران، ایران
2 استادیار، گروه علوم انسانی، دانشکده حقوق، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد تهران جنوب، ایران
3 استاد، گروه علوم انسانی، دانشکده حقوق، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد تهران جنوب، تهران، ایران
چکیده
کلیدواژهها
موضوعات
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسندگان [English]
Introduction
The fundamental rule of access to justice for all conflicts with the necessity of preventing vexatious claims, which are a clear instance of abuse of the right to litigate. Legislators, in facing this conflict and based on the rule of "preventing the greater evil by tolerating the lesser evil," attempt to prevent greater harm (the waste of justice) by accepting the lesser harm (restricting vexatious claims). However, the Iranian legislator has not provided a clear criterion for identifying a vexatious claim, and its approach is merely focused on establishing "the claimant's knowledge of being unjustified"; a condition whose proof, especially in matters of fact, is very difficult and
The Approach of the English Adjudication System in Response to Vexatious …
sometimes impossible for courts.
The present research aims to examine the approach of the English adjudication system in preventing and combating vexatious claims and defenses and comparing it with the existing gaps in Iranian law. Its main problem is how the English legal system has been able to establish an efficient balance between the right of access to court and the necessity of preventing abuse of the adjudication process. The hypothesis of this research is based on the premise that the English legal system, by providing various orders, has limited and sometimes conditioned the right of access to court in cases of abuse, and through this, has offered innovations and safeguards beyond what exists in Iranian law.
Method
The present writing, using a descriptive-analytical method and a comparative approach, examines and compares the status and methods of combating vexatious claims in the Iranian and English legal systems. The main basis of this analysis is library resources, including positive laws, legal doctrine, and especially judicial precedents. In this regard, first, the legal foundations and judicial practice of the two countries are described, and then, in a comparative analysis, the balance between the right of access to justice and the prevention of its abuse is evaluated.
Findings
The findings show that the Iranian adjudication system, due to the lack of effective deterrents, has a very weak approach in preventing the filing of vexatious claims, which has led to the inflation of cases, the useless occupation of court time, and the imposition of heavy costs on the judiciary and the litigants. In the Iranian legislative system, a vexatious claim is not defined, nor is there a clear criterion for identifying it. Despite this, to combat vexatious claims, sanctions such as the defendant's authority to request "security for a vexatious claim" and the claimant's conviction to pay three times the litigation costs (Article 109 of the Civil Procedure Code) and the possibility of the defendant claiming damages resulting from the filing of a baseless claim (Article 515 of the Civil Procedure Code) have been provided. Moreover, the approach of the Iranian legislator is merely focused on establishing the claimant's knowledge and bad faith, and it lacks any provision regarding fictitious claims filed through collusion between the parties.
In contrast, the English adjudication system has not explicitly defined a vexatious claim either. However, by employing illustrative elements, it has created effective solutions for identifying and combating it. For example, in this system, terms such as "vexatious claim" are used, and specific indicators for identifying it are provided, which give the judge the authority to limit the claimant's access to judicial services. However, the majority of instances of vexatious claims in English law fall under a more general conceptual framework termed "abuse of process." What makes the English legal system progressive is the creation of a balance between individual rights and the interests of society through the provision of a diverse range of sanctions. Unlike the unitary and ineffective approach in Iranian law, the English system considers a spectrum of reactions, from mere dismissal of the claim to the issuance of various restrictive orders in multiple courts, as tools to combat vexatious claims, each employed according to its specific circumstances.
Volume 18, Issue 1, Spring 2026
Conclusion
The English legal system, due to its possession of preventive tools and proportionate and diverse sanctions, has a more efficient capacity in managing vexatious claims than the Iranian legal system. To remedy the existing weaknesses in Iran, the following legislative reforms are suggested: First, drafting a codified list of prohibited claims (such as a claim for forcible entry filed after losing a ownership lawsuit) so that judicial service offices refrain from registering them. Second, creating an integrated system to identify persons who repeatedly file unsuccessful claims and making the filing of new claims by them conditional upon obtaining permission from a judicial authority.
کلیدواژهها [English]
)