There are large numbers of litigants in person who conduct court proceedings admirably and effectively. There is also a small proportion whose penchant for lodging persistent yet hopeless claims is an abuse of the court’s process and a costly nuisance for defendants. This text guides practitioners through the relevant provisions to minimise the impact of this latter group.

Proper use of civil restraint orders and civil proceedings orders (vexatious litigant orders) can curb vexatious claims, thus reducing wasted court time and saving defendants the time and cost of replying to claims that have no merit.

This is an area of law that has developed expeditiously in recent times. Considering the potential benefits for courts and clients it is a surprise that this book appears to be something of a pioneer, there being no other identifiable text dedicated to this issue.

Our pioneers, Giles and Rifat, do an excellent job as trailblazers. Their expertise and research have given this topic proper, full, effective coverage, while also being succinct. Their analysis of the subject matter cannot be faulted.

The book sometimes struggles structurally. In some places the text assumes knowledge or does not cite authority for its propositions, which, while the proposition is perfectly correct, would be of more use with the authority. The text is almost as comprehensive as it could be. The only issue that does not appear to be addressed is the case of Noueiri [2001] 1 WLR 2357 and the jurisdiction of the High Court (pictured) to ban a person from persistently acting as a McKenzie friend (a drop in the ocean considering the topics considered).

In conclusion, this book is accurate, comprehensive and will remain on my bookshelf. I will turn to it whenever I have to advise on a vexatious litigant case. I would recommend it to any practitioner who has to do the same, which all will at some stage.

Authors: David Giles, Maurice Rifat

£49, Wildy Simmonds & Hill Publishing

David Gardner is an administrative court office lawyer for Wales and the Western Circuit (views expressed are personal and not those of HMCTS or the Ministry of Justice)