Veitch Penny LLP - Exeter | Crediton, Devon

Case

Attorney General v Bruce
Employment Appeal Tribunal - (2 February 2006)

Issues

(1) Vexatious litigants
(2) Restriction of proceedings
(3) Section 33 of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996

Facts

Mr Bruce had commenced 80 claims over ten years in the Employment Tribunal, only two of which succeeded. His claim centred predominantly on disability and sex discrimination arising out of failed job applications. The Attorney General applied for a Restriction of Proceedings Order against Mr Bruce under the Employment Tribunals Act 1996. The making of such an Order would have the effect of restricting his right to commence proceedings before an Employment Tribunal. If the Order was made, Mr Bruce would have to apply for permission to make a claim prior to commencement.

During the hearing, Mr Bruce gave evidence that he did not pursue a claim without being satisfied that discrimination existed. He indicated that in many cases it is difficult to determine whether discrimination had occurred without making a claim and entering into correspondence. He said that if he was not able to see good grounds to proceed he would withdraw or settle on agreed terms. In reply, the Attorney General argued that a Restriction of Proceedings Order should be made because Mr Bruce was a particularly extreme case.

Decision

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) would make the Restriction of Proceedings Order of indefinite duration. It found that Mr Bruce had habitually and persistently instituted vexatious proceedings without reasonable ground, prospect of success, or any evidence that would have justified the issuing of proceedings. It noted that on two occasions he had indeed been successful, but this did not mean the Order should not be made. On the evidence in this case it was clear that Mr Bruce had issued and continued with claims despite judgments being made against him in earlier cases on the same issues. It found that Mr Bruce had not taken a sufficiently scrupulous approach to decide between those cases in which there was an appropriate ground for commencing proceedings and those in which there was not. The EAT was therefore satisfied that satisfied that Mr Bruce had habitually and persistently instituted vexatious proceedings without reasonable ground. The fact he had an occasional success was not relevant overall.

Comments

This is an interesting case exploring the Tribunal's power to make a Restriction of Proceedings Order.

Rachel Billen - Associate Solicitor, Commercial Department at Veitch Penny.
Tel: 01392 278381, Fax: 01392 410247, Email: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it