Are You Being Pestered By 'Vexatious' Claimants? Hapless Defendants Can Bite Back

Many organisations of all shapes and sizes have at one time been on the receiving end of a totally unmeritorious complaint. When such complaints turn litigious, and the claimant refuses to accept that his claim is devoid of merit, the burden on the organisation and its employees, both financial and otherwise, is considerable. Richard Harrison and James Taylor examine a recent Court of Appeal decision which reviews and extends the options available to defendants to restrain claimants who persist in bringing hopeless claims.

DEFEATING "VEXATIOUS" CLAIMANTS

There is a small but disproportionately problematic number of claimants who place a significant burden on organisations and the courts by bringing legal proceedings or multiple applications within those proceedings time and time again which have absolutely no merit. They are a drain on the organisation's time and finances through the legal costs which inevitably result and can, but in the overwhelming majority of cases should not, cause wholly unjustified stress. The position is exacerbated by the fact that these claimants frequently qualify for an exemption from having to pay the substantial fees now payable on the issue of Claim Forms and fees for making applications and they are usually unable to pay any costs orders made against them. The courts too have become conscious of the extent to which their processes are being abused. They recognise that these claimants are a drain on the court's time and limited financial resources and are concerned that they divert the court's attention away from cases of real merit.

Until now the remedies available to defendants have been limited and the drastic step of having a claimant declared a vexatious litigant pursuant to s.42 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 was only available to the Attorney General. Once this order is made a claimant ( and often his agents) can only bring an application or issue proceedings against another party with the permission of a High Court Judge.

In Bhamjee v Forsdick & Ors, (in which judgment was handed down on 25 July 2003), the Court of Appeal revisited and extended the existing options available to defendants and provided guidance on which measures the court should adopt, depending on the scale of mischief it is sought to address. The Court of Appeal renamed the existing remedies and introduced a new form of order, a General Civil Restraint Order, which covers all proceedings in the court in which the order is made...