Pursuit of Justice or Abuse of Process?

Understanding the Difference Between Legitimate Litigation and Vexatious Conduct

One of the most common accusations faced by litigants who persist in challenging court decisions is that they are "abusing the court process" or engaging in "vexatious litigation."

The terms are often used interchangeably. In law, however, they mean very different things.

The distinction matters because the justice system depends upon litigants being able to return to court where there is a genuine legal basis to do so.

The courts exist to resolve disputes. They do not exist merely to bring disputes to an end.

What Is Vexatious Litigation?

A vexatious litigant is not simply someone who loses.

A vexatious litigant is not someone who files multiple applications.

A vexatious litigant is not someone who strongly disagrees with a judgment.

The hallmark of vexatious litigation is the absence of a legitimate legal purpose.

Typically, vexatious proceedings involve:

• repetitive applications raising identical issues already determined;

• applications brought to harass or burden another party;

• claims known to be hopeless;

• proceedings brought for collateral purposes rather than genuine legal relief;

• refusal to accept final determination where no new evidence or legal basis exists.

The focus is not on quantity.

The focus is on merit and purpose.

What Is Abuse of Process?

Abuse of process occurs where court procedures are used in a manner inconsistent with the proper administration of justice.

Examples include:

• relitigating matters already finally determined;

• deliberately withholding evidence;

• forum shopping;

• using proceedings for an improper purpose;

• bringing claims that undermine the integrity of the court process.

The doctrine protects the court itself.

Its purpose is to prevent the legal process being used improperly.

What Does a Legitimate Pursuit of Justice Look Like?

A legitimate pursuit of justice involves:

• identifying a recognised legal route;

• relying upon evidence;

• pursuing relief recognised by law;

• complying with procedural requirements as far as reasonably possible;

• advancing issues which remain unresolved.

The fact that a person has lost previous applications does not automatically make subsequent litigation abusive.

The law itself provides mechanisms for revisiting decisions in limited circumstances.

Examples include:

• fraud;

• material non-disclosure;

• procedural irregularity;

• lack of notice;

• fresh evidence;

• mistake;

• human rights issues;

• jurisdictional challenges.

If the law creates those mechanisms, then using them cannot automatically be characterised as vexatious.

Applying the Distinction to a Real Case Study

Consider a litigant who:

• alleges fraud and material non-disclosure;

• relies upon Companies House records, HMRC documentation, employment records, mortgage documents, and financial accounts;

• seeks disclosure of documents;

• files applications under recognised procedural rules;

• challenges a strike-out on the basis of lack of service and lack of notice;

• seeks to set aside an order under Rule 9.9A;

• relies upon statutory rights and judicial findings already made.

That litigant may ultimately succeed or fail.

The court may accept or reject the evidence.

But the litigation itself has a legitimate legal purpose.

The applications seek recognised legal remedies through recognised legal procedures.

That is fundamentally different from a litigant who repeatedly issues identical applications merely because they dislike the outcome.

Why Persistence Is Not the Same as Vexatiousness

Many important legal cases would never have succeeded if persistence alone were treated as abuse.

Wrongful convictions are overturned because people persist.

Fraud is uncovered because people persist.

Miscarriages of justice are corrected because people persist.

The existence of repeated applications is therefore not the test.

The real question is:

Has the litigant identified a legally recognised ground requiring judicial determination?

If the answer is yes, the litigation remains capable of serving a legitimate purpose.

The Importance of Evidence

A genuine pursuit of justice becomes stronger where it is accompanied by evidence.

Courts decide cases on evidence, not belief.

The distinction therefore often becomes:

Not:

"I believe I was wronged."

But:

"I can produce documentary evidence capable of establishing that I was wronged."

The greater the evidential foundation, the further the litigation moves away from any suggestion of vexatiousness.

The Constitutional Principle

Access to justice is a constitutional right.

The rule of law requires courts to remain open to those who seek lawful remedies through lawful procedures.

The courts must protect themselves from abuse.

But they must also avoid treating persistence as abuse where legitimate issues remain unresolved.

Otherwise the system creates a dangerous principle:

That a person may pursue justice only once.

The law has never adopted such a principle.

Instead, it recognises that where fraud, material non-disclosure, procedural unfairness, fresh evidence, or jurisdictional concerns arise, the interests of justice may require the court to look again.

That is not abuse of process.

That is the legal system performing its corrective function.

© 2026 Samantha Avril-Andreassen. All rights reserved.

SAFECHAINN Ltd is a conceptual safeguarding infrastructure and policy framework authored by Samantha Avril-Andreassen.

Version 1.0

Read LinkedIn Article Here