High Court Declares Mark Hardy a Vexatious Litigant

High Court Declares Mark Hardy a Vexatious Litigant

On 19 December 2024, the High Court handed down a significant judgment in the case of His Majesty's Attorney General for England and Wales vs Mark Gregory Hardy, marking a pivotal moment in the regulation of vexatious litigation. The court, presided over by Lady Justice Macur and Mrs Justice Collins Rice, issued an all proceedings order against Mr Hardy, effectively curbing his ability to initiate legal proceedings without prior court approval for a period of three years.

The case centred on Mr Hardy's extensive history of litigation, which the Attorney General argued was habitual, persistent, and without reasonable grounds. This litigation history predominantly arose from Mr Hardy's own bankruptcy and the insolvency of companies in which he had an interest. The Attorney General's application sought to prevent Mr Hardy from acting as a representative or McKenzie friend in any proceedings, citing his past behaviour as a serial vexatious litigant.

Mr Hardy, who represented himself, denied the allegations, asserting that his legal actions were meritorious and aimed at addressing legitimate grievances. He claimed that the application by the Attorney General was an attempt to thwart his efforts to report and prosecute alleged misconduct by government officials and others.

The court examined Mr Hardy's litigation history, which included numerous unsuccessful appeals and applications across various jurisdictions. It was noted that Mr Hardy had repeatedly engaged in legal actions against individuals and entities with whom he had disputes, often resulting in adverse judicial comments regarding his conduct.

The judgment highlighted several instances where Mr Hardy's actions were deemed vexatious. For example, in his dealings with the Sir Henry Royce Memorial Foundation and other entities, Mr Hardy was found to have pursued litigation with improper motives, causing undue harassment and expense to the parties involved.

In its decision, the court emphasised the need to balance Mr Hardy's right to access the courts with the necessity of protecting individuals and the judicial system from abusive litigation practices. The court concluded that Mr Hardy's conduct warranted the imposition of an all proceedings order, which would serve as a filter rather than a barrier to his access to justice.

The court also addressed Mr Hardy's arguments regarding the special nature of bankruptcy proceedings, rejecting his claims that such proceedings should be exempt from the scope of a section 42 order. The court affirmed that bankruptcy proceedings fall within the realm of civil litigation and are subject to regulation under the Senior Courts Act 1981.

In addition to the all proceedings order, the court awarded costs against Mr Hardy, amounting to £46,339.70, reflecting the resources expended by the Attorney General's office in pursuing the application. The judgment serves as a cautionary tale for litigants who engage in vexatious litigation, highlighting the potential consequences of such conduct.

Learn More

For more information on shareholder law, see BeCivil's guide to Shareholder Law.