Attorney General v Lewis

In deciding whether to make a civil proceedings order, the court must examine the applicant’s litigation history as a whole. The inquiry is not confined to whether individual pleadings disclose a cause of action. Habitually and persistently bringing proceedings without reasonable grounds may be vexatious where the litigation has little or no discernible legal basis, imposes disproportionate inconvenience and expense, or abuses the court process. The pattern may involve different defendants and causes of action, repeated litigation of decided issues, unmeritorious appeals, or disregard of court orders. Once the statutory criteria are established, the court must separately decide whether restraint is appropriate in the exercise of its discretion.

The Attorney General applied under section 42 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 for a civil proceedings order against Kess Thomas Lewis. Over approximately four years, Mr Lewis had commenced more than 40 sets of proceedings, principally in the county courts and Administrative Court. Most had been struck out, dismissed, or refused permission, and many unsuccessful decisions had been followed by unmeritorious appeals or applications. Some defendants had been sued repeatedly, and existing restraint orders had not prevented further litigation.

The central issues were whether Mr Lewis had habitually and persistently and without reasonable ground instituted vexatious civil proceedings, and whether the court should exercise its discretion to make the order.

1. Criteria under section 42. The court identified two questions: whether the statutory conditions were satisfied, and, if so, whether discretion should be exercised to make a civil proceedings order.
2. Assessment of the litigation history. The court must examine the whole history of the matter. The hallmark of vexatious proceedings is litigation with little or no discernible basis in law, causing inconvenience, harassment and expense out of proportion to any likely benefit and using the court process for an improper purpose. Repeated claims against the same person or on the same cause of action are relevant, but they are not essential. Proceedings against numerous defendants may also establish the requisite pattern where no reasonable cause of action exists.
3. Relevant evidence. The court may rely on conclusions reached by judges in earlier proceedings. Mere suspicion of misconduct is insufficient, but the cumulative pattern of struck-out claims, refused judicial review permissions, repeated challenges to adverse decisions, disregard of restraint orders and lack of reasonable benefit may establish habitual and persistent vexatious litigation.
4. Application. The evidence showed sustained litigation over about four years, overwhelmingly unsuccessful and frequently abusive, with repeated attempts to relitigate matters and unsuccessful appeals or applications. Employment tribunal proceedings were not relied on as a basis for the application, but the remaining proceedings amply satisfied section 42(1).
5. Disposition. The court exercised its discretion in favour of making the civil proceedings order. Permission to appeal from the Divisional Court was refused, although the defendant remained entitled to seek permission from the Court of Appeal. The order was unlimited.