Mahajan v Waldman & Ors

LORD JUSTICE BROOKE: After I had finished giving judgment in this case the court considered whether it was appropriate to make any order restraining Mr Mahajan's activities in future in any way. During the course of that discussion we agreed that the order that we make on his applications should say on its face that we have dismissed each of the applications because they were totally void of merit.

The first matter we need to consider is the matter that Deputy Master Joseph referred to the court, which related to the terms of the correspondence in which Mr Mahajan had indulged when corresponding with members of the court's staff. The correspondence is before us. There seems to be no good reason why it should be read into the judgment. It is unquestionably offensive. It accuses members of the court staff who are doing their duty of being biased for improper reasons. At one stage he says he was a victim of conspiracies of some most evil Jews. It is completely clear that the court, the lawyers and staff of the office need appropriate protection.

Therefore the court is making an order restraining Mr Mahajan from corresponding with the staff or lawyers of the Civil Appeals Office in any rude or abusive manner in relation to any litigation that he may conduct in this court. I hope that that order, which will be supported by a penal notice, may bring to an end the type of correspondence that has been our misfortune to see today.

Mr Mahajan has told us that he would absolutely agree that he would not be rude to people. If that is what he is disposed to do, then the order that we propose to make will not constrain him in any way. But he must understand very clearly that, if he does correspond with the staff or lawyers of this office -- and the wording should be "addressing or corresponding with the staff or lawyers of the Civil Appeals Office" -- in a way which on some future occasion a judge or judges of this court regard as rude or abusive, then he will be found in contempt of court.

The other matter to which we need to address our minds is whether some form of restraint should be imposed on Mr Mahajan restraining his proceedings in this court in any way.

During the course of my earlier judgment, I described some of the expressions used by judges of the court in dismissing Mr Mahajan's applications on earlier occasions because they were, in essence, totally devoid of merit. These three applications have revealed vividly that, unless restrained in some way, Mr Mahajan will continue to waste the time of this court in making hopeless applications. Mr Tolley has greatly assisted us by drawing our attention to the principles set out by the judgment of the Master of the Rolls in Bhamjee v Forsdick [2003] EWCA Civ.1113 and, following the principles set out in that judgment, given that Mr Mahajan's litigation in this court can appropriately be described as both persistent and vexatious, I consider that it will be appropriate to make an order which will have the effect that, if he makes any further application to this court in any matter which in any way concerns matters involving, relating to, touching upon or leading to the proceedings with which we have been concerned today, then that application should be placed on paper for consideration by a single judge of this court (preferably one or other of the three members of the court sitting today); and, on the consideration of that application, if the application is considered to be totally devoid of merit, a refusal on paper will be final. Of course, if the judge considers it appropriate to grant an oral hearing, then an oral hearing will be granted and Mr Mahajan will be heard.

I do not consider it appropriate to make any order restraining Mr Mahajan's activities in other courts.

A copy of this judgment should be made available to the Chancery Division and to the Administrative Court so that the judges of that court, if Mr Mahajan persists in litigation which they consider to be vexatious, may decide to make a comparable order protecting the process of the court in which they sit.

If the two other members of the court agree with the orders I would make, I would be very grateful if Mr Tolley, who has greatly assisted the court today as Advocate to the Court, could assist the associate in drawing up the order.

LORD JUSTICE SEDLEY: I entirely agree that the orders proposed by my Lord should be made.

LORD JUSTICE LATHAM: I also agree.