In Williamson v Bishop of London, the Court of Appeal confirmed that employment tribunal proceedings commenced by a claimant subject to a Civil Proceedings Order were a nullity as he failed to seek the court's prior permission before issuing those proceedings. Furthermore, the High Court could not give retrospective consent to allow the claim to proceed.
What is a Civil Procedure Order?
Under S.42 of the Senior Courts Act 1981, a Civil Procedure Order (‘CPO’) can be imposed on vexatious litigants who persistently bring repeated litigation claims, without considering each claim's merits or outcome. A CPO usually prevents vexatious litigants from issuing further claims unless they have obtained prior permission from a High Court judge.
Facts
Mr Williamson had been subject to a CPO since 1997. This prevented him from issuing any civil proceedings (including tribunal claims) without permission from the High Court. When he reached the age of seventy, his parish appointment was terminated and he subsequently brought an age discrimination claim before an employment tribunal, which his lawyers contended was not vexatious. However, his ET was submitted before seeking the required permission from the court. When the issue of the CPO and lack of permission was raised by the respondents, Mr Williamson sought retrospective permission from the High Court and this was granted on the basis that he had not been involved in any litigation since the CPO had been made.
However, both the employment tribunal and EAT held that it was not possible to give retrospective permission under the terms of a CPO and that, as a result, the ET claim, filed in breach of the obligation to get prior court permission, was a nullity. Mr Williamson appealed to the Court of Appeal, contending that the claim should have been stayed while his application for permission was addressed, rather than held a nullity.
The Court of Appeal’s Finding
The Court of Appeal disagreed with Mr Williamson and concluded that the proceedings were a nullity. Although inflexible, the requirement to obtain court permission provides a necessary filter and safeguard against vexatious litigation. Therefore, permission had to be obtained before bringing a claim and could not be granted retrospectively by the High Court after the proceedings had already been issued.
Our Comments
While CPOs are rare in employment litigation, it is important to be aware of their existence and as a result of this case, it is now evident that they will apply to cases in the employment tribunal in exactly the same way they do to litigation in the civil courts.
For more information or advice on any aspect of employment litigation, please contact our experienced employment law team or email us.
