08-05-2008
“Litigation friend” case
A fascinating case has been reported this week which saw the Employment Appeal Tribunal considering whether or not an Employment Tribunal has the ability to appoint a “litigation friend” where a Claimant is, on the face of it, unhinged.
The facts behind the case are that a Claimant alleged that he had been dismissed as a kitchen porter in a hotel because Tony Blair, himself, had conspired with an unnamed group of Jehovah’s Witnesses and his employer to get him sacked.
The Tribunal, which had some suspicions about the Claimant’s mental capacity, invited the official solicitor to look into whether the Claimant’s mental capacity was sufficient to him to litigate his claim, and if he didn’t, then to appoint a “litigation friend”.
The upshot of this is that where a Tribunal is concerned about a party’s mental capacity, Tribunal must deal with allegations that may be “delusional” through the normal Case Management powers such as seeking cost warnings or strike-outs for vexatious litigation.
The downside to this of course is that you may have mentally ill parties finding themselves having costs against them which surely is not in line with the reason that Tribunals were set up in the first place.
The Claimant in this case did not gain satisfaction from the EAT on the final ground of appeal which set out the fact that he felt that he had won his claim and been awarded compensation by the Tribunal, but the order which had arrived through his letter box was, in fact, a forgery.
The facts behind the case are that a Claimant alleged that he had been dismissed as a kitchen porter in a hotel because Tony Blair, himself, had conspired with an unnamed group of Jehovah’s Witnesses and his employer to get him sacked.
The Tribunal, which had some suspicions about the Claimant’s mental capacity, invited the official solicitor to look into whether the Claimant’s mental capacity was sufficient to him to litigate his claim, and if he didn’t, then to appoint a “litigation friend”.
The upshot of this is that where a Tribunal is concerned about a party’s mental capacity, Tribunal must deal with allegations that may be “delusional” through the normal Case Management powers such as seeking cost warnings or strike-outs for vexatious litigation.
The downside to this of course is that you may have mentally ill parties finding themselves having costs against them which surely is not in line with the reason that Tribunals were set up in the first place.
The Claimant in this case did not gain satisfaction from the EAT on the final ground of appeal which set out the fact that he felt that he had won his claim and been awarded compensation by the Tribunal, but the order which had arrived through his letter box was, in fact, a forgery.
