Bermuda Supreme Court Clarifies Injunction Law
On 25 February 2026, Mr. Justice Andrew Martin of the Supreme Court of Bermuda issued an interlocutory ruling in the matter of Moulder v. Cox Hallett Wilkinson et al. [2026] SC (Bda) 21 Civ. The decision concerned a residential property dispute litigated in a series of cases, all dealing with the same set of facts.
Case Background
Four separate actions were filed by the plaintiff in relation to the property dispute, the first being filed in 2004 and the last in May 2023. The plaintiff, acting in person, lost the first three proceedings and owed significant costs judgments to the defendants. The fourth action was a constitutional challenge filed against the Government of Bermuda, seeking to overturn a court order from 2011 that struck out the plaintiff’s claim at first instance.
Applications and Rulings
In August 2025, the defendants applied to the Court to enforce their costs orders against the plaintiff. In response, the plaintiff made a cross-application for an injunction to stay the enforcement proceedings, pending the determination of his constitutional challenge, which had yet to be heard. The defendants then filed a further cross-application seeking an injunction to prevent the plaintiff from making any further applications in relation to this matter, effectively declaring the plaintiff a vexatious litigant.
Justice Martin's decision on 25 February 2026 rejected the plaintiff’s application for an injunction. He also granted an injunction in favor of the judgment creditors, prohibiting the plaintiff from filing any further applications or actions arising from the litigation against the judgment creditors without prior leave of the Court.
Legal Implications
Until this judgment, the conventional wisdom in Bermuda held that only the Attorney General had standing to have an individual declared a vexatious litigant, as a matter of statute. This ruling clarifies that the Supreme Court has the authority to grant such injunctions, thereby preventing litigants from abusing the court process through repetitive and unmeritorious applications.
This decision underscores the Court's commitment to maintaining the integrity of the judicial process and preventing the misuse of legal proceedings.
