Ross-James v Turnbull

The case of Ross-James v Turnbull involved an application by the applicant to the court, alleging that the Prime Minister had committed a criminal offence. The applicant claimed that the Prime Minister had incorrectly sworn an oath of office, which formed the basis of the alleged criminal offence. The court was required to determine whether the proceeding was vexatious in nature. In addition, the court needed to consider whether the applicant should be declared a vexatious litigant, as the applicant had previously brought six similar actions without a cause of action being made out.

The court held that the proceeding was indeed vexatious, as the applicant had made an application with no cause of action. The court further found that the applicant had brought six such actions, which triggered the discretion to declare the applicant as one who frequently instituted or conducted vexatious proceedings. Despite the absence of an application to have the applicant declared as such, the court exercised its discretion to make the declaration, considering the applicant's history of bringing similar actions. The court found that the applicant's actions were an abuse of the legal process and a waste of the court's resources.

The court ultimately decided to permanently stay any further proceedings on the applicant's application 11930 of 2017, in light of the applicant's vexatious nature and the lack of any valid cause of action. This decision was made to prevent the applicant from continuing to bring similar actions that would only serve to waste the court's time and resources. The court's determination in this case demonstrates its commitment to ensuring that the legal process is not abused and that the court's resources are used efficiently and effectively.