“Vexatious” is a familiar term in legal parlance. The hallmark of a vexatious proceeding is in my judgment that it has little or no basis in law (or at least no discernible basis); that whatever the intention of the proceeding may be, its effect is to subject the defendant to inconvenience, harassment and expense out of all proportion to any gain likely to accrue to the claimant; and that it involves an abuse of the process of the court, meaning by that a use of the court process for a purpose or in a way which is significantly different from the ordinary and proper use of the court process.”
“The essential vice of habitual and persistent litigation is keeping on and on litigating when earlier litigation has been unsuccessful and when on any rational and objective assessment the time has come to stop.”
“Whether, where the condition is satisfied, the court will exercise its discretion to make an order, will depend on the court's assessment of where the balance of justice lies, taking account on the one hand of a citizen's prima facie right to invoke the jurisdiction of the civil courts and on the other the need to provide members of the public with a measure of protection against abusive and ill-founded claims. It is clear from section 42(3) that the making of an order operates not as an absolute bar to the bringing of further proceedings but as a filter.”
“A balance has to be struck between the right of the citizen to use the courts and the rights of others and the courts not to be troubled with wholly unmeritorious claims. The administration of justice has to be taken into account. But in any event the order which has been made against Mr Wheen provides for access to the Employment Tribunal system by him so long as permission is obtained. . . . Access to the courts is not prohibited; it is provided for on certain terms.”
“She deliberately postponed writing a witness statement, saying she would do so nearer the hearing, but never wrote one, despite reminders. She obtained permission to rely on the covert recording, but has not disclosed it, whether before or after the deadline for doing so. She has caused the Respondent added cost and difficulty in their attempts to send her a hard copy bundle. In these respects, she has been uncooperative in the Respondent’s reasonable attempts to prepare for a hearing, while doing nothing herself, to the extent that the Tribunal strongly suspects that she may never have intended to go to a final adjudication of her claim. As for the correspondence, we could overlook aggression and threats as an expression of nerves on the part of a nervous and unrepresented litigant, but knowing that she has brought a number (at least six) claims in this employment Tribunal and in other Tribunal regions from time to time, we are less inclined to be sympathetic, as she must have acquired some knowledge of the steps necessary to bring a claim to hearing. The aggressive tone, however, is not what weights upon us in finding her conduct unreasonable. It is the complete lack of cooperation, whether before or after she obtained doctor’s notes saying she was not fit for work.” 37. The employment tribunal continued by stating that: "We have already concluded from the claimant’s conduct of the claim that in all probability she did not want to bring it to a hearing. In so doing, she kept this hanging over the respondent. The evidence was growing stale. The respondent’s witnesses had both left the respondent’s employment and had had to get time off to appear. She has complained that the respondent acted unreasonably in failing to negotiate, so she hoped to settle the claim while it was undecided. A claimant may hope for a settlement but if proceedings are brought, they must be heard if it is not settled. The Tribunal has considered though without being able to give a conclusion that the claimant’s conduct at least suggests that the recording of the interview she says she made does not in fact contain anything contradicting the respondent's account, as she had everything to gain by disclosing it and it was a bluff. Making a claim to obtain a settlement without any intention of taking it to a final hearing is an improper use of the Tribunal process and to be discouraged.” 38. The employment tribunal referred to the numerous claims that Ms Messi had brought, including a number that were pending, as well as unsuccessful appeals to the Employment Appeal Tribunal. It was stated that: “The claimant should by now have acquired some knowledge of the rules and of how parties are expected to conduct their claims. That is a factor suggesting that making a costs order in this case may deter her from bringing claims of little merit, as it will bring home to her that while Tribunals are generally costs neutral, that does not apply where a party is unreasonable or uncooperative.” 38. The employment tribunal found that, in this case, Ms Messi had: “wasted Tribunal time and respondents’ costs by the way she has conducted the claim, and when she knew she ran the risk of a costs order.”
“beyond doubt in my view, that the Claimant well understands that a Tribunal claim must be properly particularised and is aware of the specific sort of information which must be provided in order to advance claims for discrimination, victimisation, harassment, equal pay, whistleblowing dismissal and breach of contract.”
“a litigant in person but is well versed in many aspects of employment Tribunal procedure, including in respect of amendment and striking out, given her previous claims (against a number of different respondents and in other Tribunal regions. . . . In any event looking at each of the newly asserted complaints on its own apparent merit, I consider that the claimant would be likely to face real difficulty with each complaint. Whilst I cannot conduct a mini trial of the merits of each complaint which she seeks to introduce by amendment, I can have regard to the apparent lack of merit when deciding whether the respondent and the Tribunal should be put to the time and effort (at the expense of Tribunal users) required to address the new complaints.”
“It seems to us we were in a remarkably similar situation in this case. . . We accepted that the claimant was genuine in saying before us that she was experiencing anxiety and stress as a result of the pending hearing, but we did not accept that it was of an order that would prevent her from participating.”
“It follows from this history that we accept the submission from the Respondents that initiating litigation and then failing to attend a hearing is “standard behaviour” from the claimant. . . “As to adjournment we had no confidence that the claimant would be likely to attend a hearing listed on another date. It did not seem fair to us to put the respondent to the additional expense of attending a hearing on another date when the claimant’s attendance was significantly in doubt, furthermore we noted that one of the respondent’s witnesses, Miss Sanchez, had travelled from Spain to attend this hearing and another had left his employment for the day. . . . It is absolutely clear to us that the claimant is aware that this hearing is taking place today and has chosen not to attend.”