The Approach of the English Adjudication System in Response to Vexatious Claims and Defenses and Its Comparison with Iranian Law

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 . Ph.D. Student, Department of Humanities, Faculty of Law, Islamic Azad University, South Tehran branch, Tehran, Iran

2 , Assistant Professor, Department of Humanities, Faculty of Law, Islamic Azad University, South Tehran branch, Tehran, Iran

3 Professor, Department of Humanities, Faculty of Law, Islamic Azad University, South Tehran branch, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

Amid, H. (1984). Amid's Persian culture. Tehran: Amir Kabir Publication. [In Persian].
Amirion, G. (1960). Commenting on Article 225 of the Civil Procedure Law. Bar association magazine, 71, 12-10. [In Persian].
Auerbach, S. (2016). When the Time has Come to Say” ‘Stop’ to Vexatious Litigants. (10/05/2023), Available https: //www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/auerbach_dealing-with-vexatious-litigants-summer2012.pdf
Badpa, S, & Heydari, S. (2021). Abuse of procedural rights in the Legal System of Iran and England. Medical Law Quarterly, special issue of legal innovation. 15, 551-566. [In Persian].
Bahrami, E, & Elsan, M. (2022). The Criterion for Identifying Frivolous Claims in Iranian and English Law: A Precondition for Security of Costs Order and Striking Out the Claim. The Quarterly Journal of Natural Legal Research. 26(2), 29-52. [In Persian].
Cameron, C, & Kelly, E (2002). Litigants in Person in Civil Proceedings: Part 1. Hong Kong Law Journal. 32(1), 313-330.
Couchman, W. (2016). Strike Out Applications – Can Your Claim Stand the Test?. (11/05/2023), Available at: https: //www.duncanlewis.co.uk/litigation_news/Strike_Out_Applications_%E2%80%93_Can_Your_Claim_Stand_the_Test_(19_January_2016).html.
Didi, H. (2012). Hopeless cases: race, racism and the vexatious litigant. International Journal of Law in Context, 8(1), 27 –46, Cambridge University Press doi: 10.1017/S1744552311000371
Foo Joon, L, & Chew Zhen, T. (2020). Consequential Order: Functus Officio Rule Stretched for Interest of Justice. (10/05/2023). Available at: https: //www.lexology.com/commentary/litigation/malaysia/gan-partnership/consequential-order-functus-officio-rule-stretched-for-interest-of-justice
Graiger, I, & Fealy, M. (2000). The Civil Procedures Rules in Action. London: Cavendish Publishing Limited.
Hall, V. (2005). Uncommon Law: The English and Hong Kong Response to Vexatious Litigants. Asia Pacific Law Review. 13, 147-166.
Hornbey, A.S. (2005). Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. Oxford University Press.
Jacob, Sir Jack I.H. (1987). The Fabric of English Civil Justice. Stevens & Sons Ltd.
Jolowicz, J.A. (2000). Cambridge Studies in International and Comparative Law (on Civil Procedure). Cambridge University Press.
Kumar, M, Legg, M, & Vickovich, I. (2016). Civil Procedure in New South Wales. Thomson Reuters Press.
Levi, B. (2014). From Paranoia Querulous to Vexatious Litigants: A Short Study on Madness between Psychiatry and the Law History of Psychiatry and the Law. Part 2. History of Psychiatry Journal, 25(3), 299–316.
Loughlin, P, & Gerils, S. (2004). Civil procedure. Cavendish Publishing Limited.
Martin, E.A (2001). Oxford Dictionary of Law. Marke House Book Ltd.
Mousavi, A. (2001). judicial jurisprudence. C2. Tehran: Mofid Publication. [In Persian].
Mullen, P., & Lester, G (2006). Vexatious Litigants and Unusually Persistent Complainants and Petitioners: From Querulous Paranoia and Querulous Behaviors. Behavioral Sciences and the Law. 24(3), 333-349.
Nahrini, F. (2017). Civil procedure: lawsuits, conditions of filing, and handling them. Tehran: Ganj Danesh Publication. [In Persian].
Reed, Rt Hon Lord (2012). Lies, damned lies: Abuse of Process and the Dishonest Litigant. A Lecture at the University of Edinburgh, Available at: https: //www.supremecourt.uk/docs/speech-121026.pdf
Rozakis, C. (2004). The Right to a Fair Trial in Civil Cases. Judicial Studies Institute Journal. 4(2), 96-106.
Sadrzadeh Afshar, M. (2003). Civil and commercial procedure of public and revolutionary courts. Tehran: Academic Jihad Publication. [In Persian].
Shams, A. (2001). Civil procedure. C1. Tehran: Drak Publication. [In Persian].
Shams, A. (2006). Civil procedure. C3. Tehran: Drak Publication. [In Persian].
Szuber-Bednarz, E (2021). The Right to a Fair Trial in the ECHR Judicature. Administration and Security Studies. 10, 17-27.
Vahedi, G. (2018). Civil procedure. C2. Tehran: Mizan Publication. [In Persian].
Wade, JW. (1986). On Frivolous Litigation: A Study of Tort Liability and Procedural Sanctions. Hofstra Law Review. 14(3), 433-97.
Weil, R, & Brown, I. (2021). Civil Practice Guide: Civil Procedure before Trial. The Rutter Group California Practice Guide.
 
Cases
AG v McCluskey [2009] UKEAT/0118/09.
Alpha Rocks Solicitors v Benjamin Oluwadare Alade [2015] EWCA Civ 685. 
Attorney-General v Wheen [2001] IRLR 91.
Denton & Ors v TH White Ltd & Ors [2014] EWCA Civ 906.
HM Attorney-General v Barker [2000] 1 FLR 759.
IB v Information Commissioner [2011] UKUT 370.
Law Society of England and Wales v Otobo [2011] EWC A 2264.
Masood v Zahoor (Practice Note) [2010] 1 WLR 746.
Metropolitan Bank v Pooley [1885] 10 App Cas.
Moosun & Ors v HSBC [2015] EWHC 3308 (Ch).
Terry Allsop v Banner Jones Ltd t/a Banner Jones Solicitors, Cohen, [2021] EWCA Civ7.
 

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics