Attorney General v Simmons

For a civil proceedings order under section 42 of the Supreme Court Act 1981, the court must examine the litigant’s entire history of proceedings and applications. The inquiry is not confined to whether an individual pleading discloses a cause of action. A pattern of habitual and persistent vexatious litigation pursued without reasonable ground may justify an order, even where individual pleadings appear formally adequate. Once the statutory conditions are established, the court has a discretion whether to make the order and whether it should be limited in time or made without limit. The order may extend to proceedings brought in the litigant’s name or in the name of another person, including a spouse.

The Attorney General applied for a civil proceedings order against Kenneth Simmons under section 42 of the Supreme Court Act 1981. The application relied on a history of 21 civil proceedings and applications, largely concerning disputes involving the Post Office, his wife’s employment-related claims and his former trade union. Those proceedings had been struck out, dismissed or otherwise concluded adversely, often with findings of vexatious, unreasonable, scandalous or misconceived conduct.

Mr Simmons did not appear and was not represented. He asserted that he was medically unfit to defend the application, but supplied no current medical substantiation. The central issues were whether the statutory conditions were established and, if so, whether an order should be made and for what duration.

1. Application granted. The court found that the respondent had habitually and persistently, and without reasonable ground, instituted vexatious civil proceedings and made vexatious applications in civil proceedings. The history included repeated attempts to relitigate matters already decided, serious unsubstantiated allegations, proceedings struck out as abusive or disclosing no cause of action, and proceedings dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
2. The governing approach was stated in Re In Vernazza [1959] 1 WLR 622, at 624, and had subsequently received the approval of the Court of Appeal in [1961] QB 197. In deciding whether proceedings are vexatious, the court must consider the whole history of the matter. The question is not determined solely by whether a pleading discloses a cause of action. The court may consider affidavit evidence concerning the history and, where that history demonstrates vexatiousness, strike out the pleading and dismiss the action.
3. Once the conditions in section 42 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 are met, the court retains a discretion whether to make a civil proceedings order. It also has discretion to make the order for a limited period or without limit of time.
4. The court exercised that discretion and made the order without limit of time. It was in the form sought by the Attorney General and extended to proceedings instituted in the respondent’s name or in the name of any other person, including his wife.

First-instance application in the Administrative Court. No earlier appellate decision is described in the judgment.