Alexander Chaffers and the Genesis of the Vexatious Actions Act 1896

Abstract

IT is highly unlikely that those persons declared habitually vexatious litigants pursuant to statute would know to curse Alexander Chaffer for their predicament. Nevertheless, it was principally the litigation mania of Mr. Chaffers that stirred the British Parliament to enact the Vexatious Actions Act 1896. 1 This piece of legislation empowers the law officers to apply to the High Court to have a person declared a habitually vexatious litigant, with the consequence, if an order is made by the judge, that the person cannot initiate any legal proceedings whatsoever without prior leave of the Court. Discussions of the genesis of that Act invariably note that in the early to mid-1890s Alexander Chaffers filed 48 proceedings against a number of leading personages-including the Prince of Wales, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Speaker of the House of Commons, Lord Chancellors and many judges-but succeeded only once, receiving one pound for work done copying an affidavit for the use of the Treasury's solicitors. Costs were awarded against Chaffers in most of the other cases, but he never paid a penny. As a consequence, the Vexatious Actions Act was enacted in 1896, and, in the following year, Mr. Chaffers was the first person declared habitually vexatious and to lose his liberty to commence future litigation without judicial permission. This oft-repeated tale fails to capture Alexander Chaffers's full claim to infamy. His vexation spread over more than thirty years, during which period he was the centre of a cause ce´le`bre that had unprecedented consequences. He was involved with some of the most notorious litigants and lawyers of his time, and carried on a massive amount of litigation unaided and almost penniless. This remarkable pest deserves more attention than he has thus far received. * Alexander Turner Professor of Law, University of Auckland. Thanks to Jenny Klosser and Katherine Sanders for research assistance, and the New Zealand law firm of Chapman Tripp for funding Katherine's research assistance. 7 A dispute over an attorney's bill is reported as Reece v. Chaffers, The Times, 23 January 1863, p. 11. See also an earlier letter to the Editor, correcting a ''slight but important mistake'' in a report of a case in which Chaffers had acted as solicitor: The Times, 15 January 1857, p. 7. 8 Leading counsel for the defendant was Mr. John Duke Coleridge QC, latterly judge of the Common Pleas and Lord Chief Justice (1880-94).

Don Quixote de la Corte: Serial litigants, emotions, and access to justice

“…The main policy considerations that emerge from the activity of serial litigants came to light as early as 1896, when the British Parliament enacted the Vexatious Actions Act of that year (Taggart 2004). To this day these considerations continue to surface, almost unchanged, in court rulings and legislation on the matter.1 0F 9…”

“…As early as the nineteenth century, England's judicial system was forced to contend with a serial litigant, Alexander Chaffers, a solicitor who harassed the courts with incessant lawsuits and ignored orders that he reimburse defendants for court costs. To put a stop to his endless lawsuits, the British Parliament enacted the Vexatious Actions Act of 1896 (Taggart 2004). 2 F 1 In Australia, the lawsuits brought by Rupert Frederick Millane resulted in the adoption of similar legislation more than 85 years ago (Lester and Smith 2006), and Texas has been addressing and continuously amending its approach to the problem of vexatious litigants for 150 years (Colby 2000).…”

From paranoia querulans to vexatious litigants: a short study on madness between psychiatry and the law. Part 2

“…This explains why Chaffers’ story has since become part of juridic history. Taggart (2004) reports that he lodged no less than 48 complaints between 1890 and 1896, notably against the Prince of Wales, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Speaker of the House of Commons, Lord Chancellor, judges, etc. Authors generally focus on the legal steps taken to put a stop to these actions (Godstein and Rotter, 1988; Taggart, 2004; West and Walk, 1977).…”

“…Taggart (2004) reports that he lodged no less than 48 complaints between 1890 and 1896, notably against the Prince of Wales, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Speaker of the House of Commons, Lord Chancellor, judges, etc. Authors generally focus on the legal steps taken to put a stop to these actions (Godstein and Rotter, 1988; Taggart, 2004; West and Walk, 1977). In retrospect, we may wonder why Chaffers’ behaviour did not result in him being considered a mentally ill person, as would certainly have happened at that time in any German-speaking country.…”