Attorney General v Lawal

Under section 42 of the Supreme Court Act 1981, a civil proceedings order may be made where a person has habitually and persistently, without reasonable ground, instituted vexatious proceedings or made vexatious applications. A proceeding is vexatious where it has little or no legal basis, subjects others to disproportionate inconvenience, harassment or expense, and abuses the court process. The court assesses the litigant’s conduct as a whole, including repeated attempts to reopen decided issues and excessive applications and appeals. It does not reconsider the merits of the underlying proceedings, but may rely on the conclusions reached in them. Employment Tribunals are inferior courts for section 42 purposes.

The Attorney General applied for a civil proceedings order against the defendant under section 42 of the Supreme Court Act 1981. The application relied on extensive litigation by the defendant against former employers, a local authority and public bodies, including proceedings in Employment Tribunals, county courts, the High Court and by way of judicial review.

The issue was whether the statutory conditions were met, including whether proceedings and applications in Employment Tribunals fell within section 42. The court also considered the significance of the defendant’s occasional successes and whether the merits of the underlying proceedings should be reconsidered.

1. The court held that an Employment Tribunal is an “inferior court” for the purposes of section 42(1)(b) of the Supreme Court Act 1981. It has the essential attributes of a court: it administers the law, may summon witnesses and order disclosure, and makes binding and enforceable decisions. The court relied on Peach Grey & Co v Sommers and the decision in Vidler v Unison [6].
2. The applicable meaning of “vexatious” was taken from Attorney General v Barker. The hallmark is a proceeding with little or no legal basis, disproportionate inconvenience, harassment or expense, and an abuse of the court process [3].
3. On a section 42 application the court does not reconsider the merits of the underlying actions. It may rely on the conclusions reached by the judges and tribunals who dealt with those proceedings: Attorney General v Jones [4].
4. The defendant’s conduct, viewed cumulatively, satisfied the statutory conditions. Although he had succeeded in one claim and obtained significant legal victories in another, the wider pattern showed repeated attempts to relitigate decided matters, numerous unmeritorious applications and appeals, unintelligible and scandalous allegations, and litigation conducted in an abusive and wholly unreasonable manner [7]-[10], [51].
5. The court exercised its discretion to make a civil proceedings order without limit of time. No order for costs was sought [51]-[56].

First instance decision. The judgment records earlier decisions in the defendant’s various proceedings, but no prior stage of the present Attorney General application.