HM Attorney General v Mr Lee Johnson
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Garnham,or |
| Judgment Date | 03 May 2017 |
| Neutral Citation | [2017] EWHC 979 (Admin) |
| Docket Number | Case No: CO/4940/2014 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 03 May 2017 |
[2017] EWHC 979 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
DIVISIONAL COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Lord Justice Irwin
and
Mr Justice Garnham
Case No: CO/4940/2014
Ms Camila Chorfi (instructed by Government Legal Department) for the Applicant
Mr Henry Mainwaring for the Respondent
Hearing dates: 28 th February 2017 & 5 th April 2017
Approved Judgment
Introduction
This is the judgement of the Court to which we have both contributed.
This application is made by the Attorney General under a notice dated 24 October 2014 for an indefinite "All Proceedings Order" ["APO"] pursuant to Section 42 of the Senior Courts Act 1981. The Respondent has been known by the names " Lee Johnson", "Michael Lee Johnson" and "Michael Leo Johnson". The Respondent has previously been subject to three civil restraint orders with limited duration, in 2007, 2008 and 2012.
The Attorney General relies on the witness statement of Ibrahim Seedat of the Treasury Solicitor's Department, dated 21 October 2014, and on three witness statements of Sharanjeet Sidhu, also of the Treasury Solicitor's Department, dated 1 February 2017, 27 March 2017 and 31 March 2017. In each case, extensive exhibits are appended to the witness statement.
It is the Attorney General's case that the Respondent has been responsible for a long course of vexatious and repetitive claims, applications and appeals, in the Employment Tribunal and Employment Appeal Tribunal ["EAT"], in the Magistrates Courts, in the County Court and in the High Court. The Attorney General has submitted a schedule of actions initiated by the Respondent. In most of these cases, the Respondent was unsuccessful and in many cases his claims were dismissed as being totally without merit, or vexatious, or in terms which amounted to the same conclusion.
The Respondent initially submitted an extensive witness statement, dated 14 February 2017. In purported compliance with an Order of this Court of 28 February 2017 he has served two further witness statements.
He does not accept the existence of some of the proceedings listed in the schedule and contests some of the summaries. He initially asserted that the schedule was incomplete; and referred to seven further claims initiated between July 2012 and October 2016.
The matter initially came on for hearing on 28 February 2017. In order to give the Respondent the opportunity to furnish us with evidence in support of his submission that in recent times his approach to litigation has been more responsible and that he has been successful in a number of actions he has brought, we adjourned the hearing part heard. The hearing was resumed and completed on 5 April 2017.
Three issues arise. Firstly, whether the Attorney General is estopped from applying for an APO on the ground that he previously made, but discontinued, an application to the EAT for a Restriction of Proceedings Order under Section 33 of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996. Provided he is not so debarred from making the application, the remaining issues are whether an APO should be made, and if so whether it should be of indefinite or limited effect.
The History
It is neither necessary nor appropriate to set out all the facts concerning the litigation initiated by the Respondent in detail. We were supplied with a detailed and comprehensive schedule of proceedings by Ms Chorfi, who appears on behalf of the Attorney General, which was, in large part, accepted as accurate by Mr Mainwaring. That schedule lists, and numbers, the 45 proceedings initiated by the Respondent (together with various related matters). We set out below what seems to us the relevant features of these claims. We then summarise the bankruptcy proceedings involving Mr Johnson and the previous applications for civil restraint orders to which we have referred above.
Civil and Criminal Proceedings commenced by the Respondent
The Attorney General's schedule suggests that the known course of litigation began in 1999, with a claim by the Respondent against Perot Systems Europe Ltd ["Perot"] in the Employment Tribunal (Claim No 1 in the Attorney's schedule). The Respondent disputes such a claim. His account is that he appealed his dismissal by Perot " internally and was awarded £39,000 in compensation". The National Employment Tribunal Judgment Register contains no record of a judgment in such a case, but there is mention of this claim in what the Attorney has called the "First Perot judgment". That was a decision of Eady J in Claim No 5, which we deal with below.
In March 2002, the Respondent sued Abbey National, claiming £7.5 million for " erroneous registration as a fraudster" with various credit agencies (Claim No 2). This action was struck out on 20 October 2003. The Respondent's appeal was dismissed on 22 January 2004.
Also referred to in the first Perot judgment are proceedings by the Respondent said to be before the Employment Tribunal against Deutschebank (Claim No 3). The Attorney General advances no detail of this. It is not addressed in detail by the Respondent. The case was said to have been dismissed on the grounds that in interview with Deutschebank the Respondent " had not been forthcoming about his dismissal with Perot".
In May 2002 Mr Johnson began proceedings in the High Court against a company called Zephon and against the Risk Advisory Group Ltd, seeking damages in the sum of £10 million for defamation, negligence and violations of the Data Protection Act 1994. This claim related to a privileged report, made to Deutschebank (Claim No 4). The outcome of this action is not revealed in the papers we have seen, although its commencement is referred to by Eady J at paragraph 104 of his judgment in Claim No 5. However, very similar proceedings were commenced against different defendants later that month.
On 27 May 2002 Mr Johnson began proceedings in the High Court seeking damages in the sum of £2.3 – 10 million (Claim No 5). The same causes of action were advanced, each of which related to the same privileged report made by an employee of his then employers Perot to another potential employer. In October 2005 Mr Justice Eady heard applications in that action by the Defendants for summary judgment or for an order that the proceedings be dismissed for abuse of process. In a judgment running to 120 paragraphs ( [2005] EWHC 2450), Eady J held that the Defendants had established abuse of process and ruled that the Defendants were entitled to have the action dismissed. The claim was struck out on 11 November 2005 for abuse of process.
The Respondent issued a claim in the Basildon County Court against Abbey National on 14 April 2004 (Claim No 6). The outcome of that claim is unknown but in the first Perot case Eady J noted (at paragraph 102) that it was described by the Defendants in those proceedings as being " an abusive attempt to re-litigate the claims already struck out", namely action 2.
On 28 October 2004, the Respondent issued a claim (Claim No 7) in the Chancery Division against Abbey National and Banco Santander. He had acquired a small shareholding in Abbey National and sought to challenge the merger of Abbey National with Banco Santander. The action was dismissed on 8 November 2004 by Evans-Lomb J who described it as " misplaced or misconceived".
Between 6 April 2006 and 9 November 2005, the Respondent issued claims against Perot, Cameron McKenna, Herbert Smith, Abbey National, McGoldrick's Solicitors, Catlin Insurance Co Ltd and Mishcon de Reya Solicitors (Claims No 8–13). These claims were dismissed. An application to appeal in the Abbey National action was dismissed as being totally without merit. An attempt to re-list an oral hearing for permission to appeal the same order was refused, Keith J observing that there was " absolutely no chance of the appeal succeeding".
In April 2006 the Respondent commenced four actions against a number of parties; Perot, CMS Cameron McKenna, Herbert Smith, Abbey National, McGoldricks, Catlin Insurance Co Ltd, and Mischon de Reya. (Claims No 14–17)
In October 2006, the Respondent sought to appeal a decision notice issued by the Information Commissioner on 31 October 2006, refusing an information request (Claim No 18). That appeal was dismissed.
Also in 2006, the Respondent issued a claim for disability discrimination against First Limited in the Stratford Employment Tribunal (Claim No 19). This matter was resolved through the offices of ACAS.
On the 30 April 2007 Mr Johnson commenced (Claim No 20), against Building Magazine and another. That action related to an article in the magazine about Perot's strike out of Mr Johnson's claim.
In late 2006 the Claimant began an unlawful discrimination claim against the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham. On the 29 January 2008 that claim (Claim No 21) was dismissed.
In 2007 the Claimant began, but then withdrew, an action against First Bus, apparently in respect of a personal injury claim arising from an accident at work. (That claim was numbered 21a in the Attorney General's Schedule).
On 6 February 2008 the Claimant commenced a disability discrimination claim in respect of three unsuccessful applications for employment with the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham ["LBBD"] in the Stratford Employment Tribunal (Claim No 22). That claim was dismissed. Mr Johnson's appeal against that dismissal was dismissed by Underhill J on 5 May 2010.
Between 23 May 2009 and 17 July 2011 the Respondent commenced, in the Stratford Employment Tribunal and the East London Tribunal, a total of five disability discrimination claims (Claim Nos 23–27). Those five claims were consolidated by Employment...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lee Johnson v Ministry of Justice
...A very detailed background to the Claimant's litigious activity is set out in the judgment of the Divisional Court in A-G v Johnson [2017] EWHC 979 (Admin), a judgment upon the implications of which the Defendant relies heavily in this application. That judgment led to the Divisional Court......