Businesses fear rise in ‘vexatious’ tribunal claims – Law Society’s Gazette

Posted December 20th, 2017 in employment tribunals, fees, news, vexatious litigants by sally

‘Nine out of 10 companies believe that the removal of employment tribunal fees will lead to a rise in weak or misguided claims, a survey for an employers’ lobby group has concluded.’

Full Story

Law Society's Gazette, 19th December 2017


‘Vexatious’ barrister loses High Court appeal against disbarment – Legal Futures

‘A barrister who was disbarred after the Employment Appeal Tribunal made a ‘restriction of proceedings’ order (RPO) to prevent him bringing further vexatious claims, has had his appeal to the High Court rejected.’

Full story

Legal Futures, 18th November 2016


Employment tribunal fees ‘will deny workers justice’ – The Independent

‘Workers unfairly dismissed by their employers are being denied access to justice because of new Government court fees, a cross party committee of MPs has warned. Since the new employment tribunal fees were introduced in 2013 there has been a “precipitate drop” of almost 70 per cent in the number of cases being brought, the Commons Justice committee said. It can now cost as much as £1,200 simply to bring a claim.’

Full story

The Independent, 20th June 2016


Pensions Ombudsman anonymity move will protect individuals, but could lead to vexatious claims, says expert –

Posted June 13th, 2016 in anonymity, complaints, news, ombudsmen, pensions, vexatious litigants by sally

‘The UK Pensions Ombudsman has begun publishing adjudicators’ opinions and formal ombudsman determinations on its website and will make the complainants anonymous in most cases.’

Full story, 10th June 2016


Would-be barrister fails in bid to lift vexatious litigant order – Legal Futures

‘The High Court has rejected a bid by a would-be barrister to lift a decade-old declaration that she was a vexatious litigant, which she said was harming her prospects of becoming a lawyer.’

Full story

Legal Futures, 4th April 2016


Court of Appeal rules on vexatious and unreasonable information requests – Local Government Lawyer

‘The Court of Appeal has handed down a key ruling on the scope of a public authority’s power to reject a request for information as ‘vexatious’ or ‘manifestly unreasonable’.’

Full story

Local Government Lawyer, 20th May 2015


Society of Lloyd’s v Noel – WLR Daily

Society of Lloyd’s v Noel [2015] EWHC 734 (QB); [2015] WLR (D) 142

‘In considering whether “a party had persistently issued claims or made claims which are totally without merit” for the purpose of meeting the criteria for the making an extended civil restraint order in accordance with paragraph 3.1 of Practice Direction 3C supplementing CPR r 3.11, the court was entitled to have regard to all such claims and applications made by the litigant, including those made prior to the making of an earlier extended civil restraint order.’

WLR Daily, 20th March 2015


Freedom of Information and Data Protection: Case Law Update 2014 – Thirty Nine Essex Street

‘This paper covers key information rights cases in 2014. The breadth of issues covered below, from legal professional privilege, human rights to vexatious requests, demonstrates the overlap between information law and many other areas of public law. This paper is intended to provide guidance, even for those who are not steeped, day-to-day, in the workings of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“FOIA”) and the Data Protection Act 1998 (the “DPA”), on the practical implications of these developments.’

Full story (PDF)

Thirty Nine Essex Street, February 2015


Judicial review reforms will discourage “ill-conceived and vexatious claims”, experts say –

‘Changes to the rules governing judicial review (JR) claims will ensure that those challenging the decisions of public bodies face a “fair level of financial risk”, the Government has said.’

Full story, 7th February 2014


Government defamation costs reforms ‘could have chilling effect’ – Daily Telegraph

“Government proposals to allow people of ‘modest means’ to sue for libel without having to pay the other side’s legal costs if they lose could have a ‘chilling effect’ on free speech, a leading media lawyer has warned.”

Full story

Daily Telegraph, 13th September 2013


Judicial Review reform: What does “totally without merit” mean? – Paul Bowen QC – UK Human Rights Blog

Posted April 26th, 2013 in civil procedure rules, judicial review, news, vexatious litigants by tracey

“What is the test the Court should apply in deciding whether an application is ‘totally without merit’? The question is prompted by the Lord Chancellor’s announcement on 23 April 2013 that he will press ahead with plans to reform judicial review procedure to target ‘weak, frivolous and unmeritorious cases’. A key change will be to give judges of the Administrative Court, when refusing permission to apply for judicial review on the papers, the power to certify a claim as ‘totally without merit’ (TWM), thus depriving the claimant of the right to renew the application before the court at an oral hearing.”

Full story

UK Human Rights Blog, 25th April 2013


Vexatious and manifestly unreasonable requests: definitive guidance from the Upper Tribunal – Panopticon

Posted February 8th, 2013 in freedom of information, news, vexatious litigants by sally

“Public authorities often have cause to consider whether to treat requests for information as vexatious (section 14 of FOIA) or manifestly unreasonable (regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR). Precise definitions of those terms are difficult to pin down. They are not supplied by legislation. There is no binding authority from appellate courts or tribunals on their meaning in the information rights context. The Information Commissioner’s guidance is long-standing, but First-Tier Tribunals vary in the extent to which they use that guidance.”

Full story

Panopticon, 7th February 2013


Appeal tribunal slaps down serial employment litigant – Law Society’s Gazette

Posted June 15th, 2012 in employment tribunals, news, vexatious litigants by sally

“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.”

Full story

Law Society’s Gazette, 15th June 2012


Star Reefers Pool Inc v JFC Group Co Ltd – WLR Daily

Posted January 24th, 2012 in appeals, injunctions, jurisdiction, law reports, vexatious litigants by sally

Star Reefers Pool Inc v JFC Group Co Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 14; [2012] WLR (D) 3

“A judge’s decision that a party’s foreign proceedings were vexatious or oppressive was an evaluative judgment in a matter on which there was a right or wrong answer, not an exercise of discretion. Accordingly it was open to the Court of Appeal to conduct a serious review of the issue.”

WLR Daily, 20th January 2012


High cost of compensation culture and ‘human rights’ – Daily Telegraph

Posted June 13th, 2011 in compensation, human rights, news, tribunals, vexatious litigants by tracey

“Natasha Sivanandan has spent 25 years pursuing tribunal cases and has now secured her biggest victory with a £425,000 payout.”

Full story

Daily Telegraph, 11th June 2011


Supperstone v Hurst and another – WLR Daily

Posted June 11th, 2009 in law reports, restraining orders, vexatious litigants by sally

Supperstone v Hurst and another [2009] EWHC 1271 (Ch); [2009] WLR (D) 176

“The court did not have jurisdiction to make an extended civil restraint order which prevented the person subject to the order from engaging in any form of mere communication with the person for whose benefit the order was made.”

WLR Daily, 10th June 2009


Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Ewing v Director of Public Prosecutions – WLR Daily

Posted August 4th, 2008 in judicial review, law reports, prosecutions, vexatious litigants by sally

Ewing v Director of Public Prosecutions; [2008] WLR (D) 276; [2008] WLR (D) 276

“It was necessary for a person who was the subject of a civil proceedings order to seek leave, under s 42(3) of the Supreme Court Act 1981, to make an application for permission to proceed with a claim for judicial review notwithstanding that the underlying decision he sought to challenge related to a criminal cause or matter.”

WLR Daily, 1st August 2008


Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.