Claimant v London Borough of Harrow

The claim was struck out under Rule 38(1)(a) because it was scandalous, vexatious, and had no reasonable prospect of success. The ET1 contained no particulars of any acts or conduct by the Respondents that could amount to unlawful treatment. The tribunal found the claim was part of a pattern of serial litigation by the claimant, who had previously issued 47 claims since 2016 and 7 linked claims against London Borough of Barnet, all of which had been struck out. The respondents were legal representatives acting in the course of previous proceedings, and their conduct was protected by judicial proceedings immunity.

The claim was struck out under Rule 38(1)(a) as it was scandalous, vexatious, and had no reasonable prospect of success. No specific acts of harassment were pleaded in the ET1. The claimant provided no particulars of any conduct by either Respondent that could constitute harassment. The tribunal found this was part of a vexatious pattern of litigation targeting legal representatives who were simply doing their job in earlier proceedings.

The claim was struck out under Rule 38(1)(a) for being scandalous, vexatious, and having no reasonable prospect of success. The claimant failed to identify any protected act or any detrimental treatment by the Respondents. The tribunal found that any communications between the Respondents and the claimant arose solely in the context of defending earlier proceedings and were protected by judicial proceedings immunity.

The claim was struck out under Rule 38(1)(a) as scandalous, vexatious, and having no reasonable prospect of success. The claimant provided no particulars of any protected disclosure or any detriment suffered as a result. The tribunal found the claim was unparticularised and the Respondents could not sensibly respond to it. The claimant's belief that the First Respondent had a duty to act on information was speculative and unsupported by any legal duty or pleaded facts.