Take a look at this article from The Daily Telegraph. A good idea in principle but I’m wondering about the Data Protection issues involved, as well as the subsequent satellite litigation that would undoubtedly result. Does anyone remember the blacklist of “difficult” employees compiled by The Consulting Association (see my previous post on the subject here)? Or the National Staff Dismissal Register (see here) ?
I can accept that there is a world of difference between a register kept by employers and passed on to others to identify those employees who stand up for their rigths and those people who bring many different (and fabricated) claims – but how do you differentiate between the two in practice? I suppose we should bear in mind Oscar Wilde’s aphorism (albeit paraphrased) “To have one Discrimination claim is unfortunate, to have 34 is downright suspicious”. Preventing someone from asserting their legal rights is not something to be undertaken lightly.
It’s interesting that the Employment Tribunal isn’t keen to get involved and I can see why. These serial litigants might turn their hand to defamation or judicial review instead of discrimination claims. Tribunals are wary of awarding costs against litigants and they certainly aren’t going to relish banning individuals from bringing claims. Since 1993 they have had the power to make a “restriction of proceedings order”, but they are very rare. The way forward is shown by Her Majesty’s Courts Service, which runs all the civil and criminal courts (but not the Tribunals) in the country and which maintains a list of vexatious litigants on its website (www.hmcourtsservice.gov.uk). However, the people listed on there will have been declared a vexatious litigant in proceedings and thus there has been a judicial finding. If Mr Turner’s idea is to get off the ground (and it deserves to) he will need the ET to be more robust in making “restriction of proceedings orders” and then publishing that list.
Related posts:
Hmm. I wonder if this company would refuse a request from an employer who did not actually have a current claim against it! At £99 a pop, I rather doubt it.
Dear Michael
Read your blog just now and thanks for the support. Damian McCarthy of Cloisters Chambers and I were immediately contacted by the ICO when we first raised the possibility of a database and have decided to opt for a search system rather than record keeping. The end result is the same but the means keep DPA out of the frame.
It actually works very well. We had a briefing today at Chancery Lane and lots of people/press came. The website –www.serial-litigants.com explains all. In each case where we have helped with claim history, the contact has achieved a strike out so fingers crossed.
Regards,
Gordon Turner
I really do not agree that there are no data protection issues. For example, say that company X completes a search form requesting information about Y. This is data and Y is likely to be entitled to know the identity of the company conducting the search on him. This means that the confidentiality of company X is compromised. I notice that the website covers itself by saying that information about clients will be released as required by law and that would presumably include situations in which the Information Commissioner has made a ruling.
In the case of genuine serial litigants, this does not really matter, because there is no real advantage in finding out who knows about it. However, in the case of companies who abuse the scheme for other purposes, they are at risk of getting found out.
[...] Serial Litigants Beware [...]
[...] graduate”. I have written about the issues concerning serial litigants before (see here, here and [...]