HM Attorney General v Kumar

For the purposes of a civil proceedings order under Supreme Court Act 1981, the court must examine the litigant’s history as a whole. It does not determine whether proceedings are vexatious merely by examining whether individual pleadings disclose a cause of action.

Relevant hallmarks include repeated or similar litigation, lack of reasonable grounds, refusal to accept adverse judgments, aggressive conduct, and persistent repetition. The court may rely on the outcomes and character of earlier proceedings without going behind the judgments or orders made in them. The jurisdiction extends to proceedings in Employment Tribunals and may be exercised notwithstanding the litigant’s residence in another part of the United Kingdom.

HM Attorney General applied for a civil proceedings order against the defendant under section 42 of the Supreme Court Act 1981. The defendant had instituted 15 sets of civil proceedings in England and Scotland, concerning immigration, asylum support, data protection, employment and related matters. The proceedings had uniformly failed, largely through striking out, refusal of permission or dismissal.

The defendant knew of the hearing but did not attend and had not made a persuasive application for an adjournment. The central issues were whether the statutory conditions were satisfied, whether the defendant’s residence in Scotland prevented the order, and whether the Employment Tribunal proceedings could be included.

1. The court proceeded in the defendant’s absence. He knew of the hearing and had not made a persuasive application for an adjournment. His applications seeking to strike out or delay the Attorney General’s application were without merit.

2. Section 42 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 permits a civil proceedings order where a person has habitually and persistently, and without reasonable ground, instituted vexatious civil proceedings or made vexatious applications in civil proceedings.

3. In deciding whether litigation is vexatious, the court must examine the whole history. It is not confined to deciding whether individual pleadings disclose a cause of action. The court does not go behind the judgments and orders made in the earlier litigation.

4. The relevant features included the repeated litigation of the same or similar issues, absence of reasonable grounds, failure to accept adverse decisions, aggressive conduct, and persistent repetition. The defendant’s 15 proceedings had been uniformly unsuccessful, involved extravagant claims and serious unfounded allegations, and were often incoherent. None had resulted in a substantive successful outcome.

5. The statutory language was wide enough to include proceedings in Employment Tribunals. The defendant’s residence in Scotland did not prevent the Administrative Court from making an order under section 42.

6. The application was exceptionally strong. A civil proceedings order was necessary because the existing Civil Restraint Order did not sufficiently restrict the defendant’s litigation. The court also dismissed all his applications and cross-applications. The wider public interest included protecting court time and the civil justice system from the burden imposed by vexatious litigation.

not stated in the judgment.