Appeal tribunal slaps down serial employment litigant
A litigant who began 31 sets of employment tribunal proceedings over 28 months has been told he can bring no more cases without the Employment Appeal Tribunal’s express permission.
In a judgment published earlier this week, the appeal tribunal (EAT) said that Anthony Bentley, who claims in his CV to be a qualified photographer and to have been an entertainer, issued proceedings for age discrimination and, in some cases, disability discrimination, in tribunals across the country, including Manchester, Exeter, Sheffield and London.
The EAT said that Bentley would either apply for a job or inform the potential employer that he was available for work. When he did not receive a job offer, he would issue proceedings. He attended no hearings and none of his claims, all made between 3 June 2009 and 29 September 2011, was successful.
The EAT said it has imposed an indefinite ‘restriction of proceedings order’ on Bentley under section 33 of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996. This bars him from starting or continuing any proceedings before an employment tribunal or the EAT without the EAT’s permission.
Comments
About time too
Its people like this who are a total drain on resources. A complete waster.
I think there have to be better safeguards in place to weed out vexatious litigants much more quickly. The Employment Tribunal is gaining a reputation for this kind of thing and as always it adversely affects those people who have genuine grievances and employers who have to fund this nonsense.
Contradiction!
But Kelly, you were posting on here 2 days ago that solicitors should not be able to point such things out to litigants in person!
Vexatious litigants have to be dealt with by pointing out holes in their legal argument and threats of costs. The fact that a vexatious litigant has to be informed as to why their case is hopeless and the fact that the respondent will make a costs application are two points that the authorities are clear must be made by the employer if they hope to strike a claim out and recover some of their costs
These are two things you specifically said were against the SRA's code of practice for dealing with litigants in person and you accused solicitors of bullying litigants if they undertook such practices!
Quite! - Indeed, I think I am
Quite!
-
-
No contradiction
No condradiction my friend. You should read my views carefully instead of trying to misrepresent them.
Concerning comments made in response to other articles, my view stands that it is not up to solicitors to offer legal advice or try to impose their (often incorrect) assessment of the merits of the case on the opposing LiP. O.K - you may possibly say 'we believe our client has a good case for these reasons' and include the usual protocol/waffle in the letter but it is not acceptable to use high pressure and bullying tactics as I have witnessed in other cases I have commented on.
As for Domcoop, perhaps he is showing his full coulours. Is he saying that third party litigants should not have the right to complain about the appalling behaviour of solicitors to the Ombudsman because they are vexatious litigants? It seems to me you two want to have things both ways. You expect opposing litigants to take your advice to drop their claim (or drop their defence to your claim) because according to you it is going to lose and then state that you have no obligation to them when you treat them shabbily - or it is judged that contrary to your warped assessment, that it was your client who brought vexatious claims against them. What an arrogant attitude to have.
As for the vexatious fool in the article above, are you saying that if a solicitor for the the employers concerned had told him his cases were hopeless he would have stopped? Of course he would not because he knew full well what he was doing was an abuse calculated to cause maximum inconvenience and/or a money making racket. My observation above was that the courts should be identifying these wasters at an earlier stage before they cause havoc.
Vexatious litigants like Bentley are one thing - how solicitors deal with third party litigants generally and their right or not to complain about shabby solicitors to the Ombudsman is quite another.
Money power
In my humble opinion only an adverse costs order would cut it. Why don't we have a "convention" that LiP's who do not come and argue thier case to have costs ordered against them in any proceedings including employment matters.
I was thinking that imposing claim fees for issuing could resolve this but that may be unfair for a larger class of people then that which will gain benefits. However if we are talking about low amounts i.e. 50 pounds or even higher then this may work against serial claimants.
Serial Vexatious Litigants
The problem with alot of these people is that they are exempt from court fees. They can go on and on for years until they are stopped. By the time they are finished and restrained, millions have been wasted in taxpayers money. And most do not pay cost orders awarded against them.
Make no mistake - these people are a menace to society and themselves. In my opinion many are deliberately bringing the courts in to disrepute - or are people who suffer severe personality disorders .
In my opinion, suspected serial vexatious litigants should agree to have a psychiatric evaluation if a judge feels is appropriate. Those found to be deliberately abusing the system should be thrown in jail. And part of the problem is that not all of these people are LiP's. Law firms who take on cases on behalf of vexatious litigants need to be discouraged and restrained by the courts if they persist.
Anyway from vague memory of an article on here I think the Employment Tribunal is taking some steps regarding claims fees and claimants, due to the large number of vexatious litigants through their doors.
As has been stated, court
As has been stated, court fees mean nothing if you do not have to pay them, and adverse costs orders are a bit like fines for speeding. It will only affect you psychologically if you consider that you are at risk (i.e. you are driving past a bright yellow speed camera). Otherwise human nature is such that people take little notice.
Vexatious litigants in person on the whole do not appreciate any risk to them.
My view is that the spiralling of litigants in person is partly due to the internet. There are forums where people give "advice", and such advice never highlights any down side to the suggested course of action.
Employment Tribunals, County Courts, and even Magistrates Courts (which raises a different problem) are all following a one-way street of increasing complexity. I think that this holds the key. The more complexity there is, the more expense for a represented party. It also makes it more likely a litigant in person will ignore the rules, and more likely that if their case is found against them for breach of the rules that they will appeal.
These are supposed to be summary courts, providing quick and easy "justice".
I think that there ought to be a hearing, akin to a disposal hearing, very early on in the process. Simple cases could be dealt with there and then. Complex cases could be adjourned off with directions, which can be explained in person to the litigant in person. Vexatious cases can also be dealt with, and the judge could make appropriate orders there and then. Yes it would take more time and cost more, but given the number of cases that settle, having a compulsory attendance hearing may well encourage settlement a lot more than compulsory mediation, for example. Block list them for five minute hearings, and warn litigants that failure to attend or be represented equals compulsory strike out, which can only be set aside if the party in default pays the costs of the opposing party up to that date, and then within a six month long-stop period.
In ET cases, deposit orders could be made, and warning endorsed on the file that the litigant has been warned that they may be likely to face an adverse costs order if they lose substantively.
Understanding vexatious litigants
I suppose the internet might be to blame in encouraging some vexatious complainants. However, I think the ones you often see in court (not so much ET cases) are actually beyond that and they are incredibly resourceful and many have very good legal knowledge. What marks them out from those who have genuine cases is that these people can make a simple case incredibly complex and difficult for a judge to deal with in one hearing.
What these litigants always fail to do however is see the bigger picture .They are very good at identifying and making great play on minor and immaterial mistakes made by judges etc and quite often go on and sue the lawyers for the opposing side and even the judge. They are obsessives who have totally lost any respect for the judiciary.
I have read alot of the past cases where the Attorney General have made orders under under S42 (vexatious litigant orders) . They are a real eye opener and give a fascinating and sometimes hilarious insight into these people and perhaps demonstrate that the judiciary need to try and understand these people and what drives them in order to deal with them.
Incidentally, the litigant in the case in the article above seems to be simply a money grabber. A nuisance nevertheless but the clue with him is that he never attended any hearings. The obsessive litigant usually does attend (albeit they may try and use delaying tactics to string out a case) as the litigation is like a drug.
S42 Orders are not so common nowadays due to restraining orders being used alot more.
Here is one quite funny example of one hearing - quite an old case now.
http://www.infotextmanuscripts.org/vexatiouslitigant/vex_lit_at_gen_covey_appeal_c.html
Commentary of the judge at the start:
2. In his application this morning, Mr Covey took the course of stripping off his clothes and throwing water at one member of the court.
An exchange between the judge and Mr C.
24. THE APPLICANT:Point of order, your Honour. The law was passed on 1 July.
25. THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE: The order was made --
26. THE APPLICANT: I was out of the country at the time.
27. THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE: Would you please keep quiet?
28. THE APPLICANT: How can I harass them? I wasn't even in the country.
29. THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE: Would you please keep quiet or you will have to leave court?
30. THE APPLICANT: I was just picking up on a point of law, that's all. The law was passed on 1 July.
31. THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE: Mr Covey, would you please keep quite and not interrupt me?
32. THE APPLICANT: Am I right?
33. THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE: If you do interrupt me, then you will have to leave court.
34. THE APPLICANT: Please tell this court when the Harassment Act was passed.
35. THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE: The court is going to adjourn.
36. THE APPLICANT: Fine. The Harassment Act was passed on 1 July. I was out of the country. How can I harass somebody when I'm out of the country? This is a kangaroo court and you are a bent judge.
Litigants in person - Law Society Guidance
Slightly off topic from the topic in the article but the link below is relevant to some of the comments here about LiPs and how to deal with them. Also the distinction in the guidance made between LiPs and vexatious litigants (just for those who think everyone who is a LiP is vexatious or unreasonable)
The guidance note in the link looks like it was written fairly recently.
I think it is very well written. Is somebody at the Law Society listening I wonder?
If so, well done particularly @ Section 3 and 3.1
http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/productsandservices/practicenotes/litigantsinperson/5059.article