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).