Natasha Sivanandan (Claimant/Appellant) v London Borough of Enfield
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 29 January 2010 |
| Neutral Citation | [2010] EWHC 3147 (QB) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
| Date | 29 January 2010 |
| Docket Number | Case No: CC/2009/PTA/0262 |
[2010] EWHC 3147 (QB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Before: Mr Justice Slade
Case No: CC/2009/PTA/0262
Ms Sivanandan Appeared As A Litigant In Person
Mr Quinn Appeared On Behalf Of The Defendant/Respondent
Approved Judgment
No of Folios: 101
No of words: 7302
MRS JUSTICE SLADE:
This is an appeal by Natasha Sivanandan from the judgment and orders made by His Honour Judge Mitchell on 12 March 2009. The Judge struck out a claim made by Ms Sivanandan against the London Borough of Enfield in which she alleged misconduct, misfeasance in public office by employees of Enfield.
The claim was struck out under CPR 3.4(2)(b) on the grounds that it is an abuse of the court's process in that it relates to litigation concerning a period of employment with Enfield between July and December 1996, which has been litigated in the County Court and Employment Tribunal. The Judge considered the claim to be totally without merit. He ordered Ms Sivanandan to pay Enfield's costs in the sum of £13,863.50.
The Judge also made an extended civil restraint order for a period of two years which applied to this case, other than an appeal against the order, to prevent Ms Sivanandan from issuing any new case in any County Court in respect of her employment with Enfield.
I gave Ms Sivanandan permission to appeal on the basis that on the case advanced by her it was arguable, as she contended, that her claim for misfeasance, although arising from the same factual background as her previous claims, was different in substance and should not have been struck out.
Ms Sivanandan, who is a non-practising barrister, presented herself. Mr Quinn represented Enfield.
The grounds of appeal in Ms Sivanandan's notice of appeal are that (a) her claim was not an abuse of process as it was a substantially different claim to any other which she had brought. Her claim was that between November 1997 when an Employment Tribunal held that Enfield was her employer and 13 November 2003 when she alleged that Enfield admitted in the High Court that between those dates Enfield's legal officers had knowingly misled her by alleging that it was not her employer and that she was not entitled to Enfield's contractual procedures. She stated in her notice of appeal that there is a public interest engaged where “a public body has refused to investigate a complaint despite its own admission of wrongdoing and deliberate misrepresentation to the Claimant about her legal position as an employee.”
(b) An allegation of bias against the County Court Judge originally made in the grounds of appeal was not pursued.
(c) Ms Sivanandan contended that it was not necessary or proportionate to impose an extended civil restraint order on her because her claim was wrongly struck out and because she had “stated clearly in the hearing and in her skeleton argument that she did not intend to bring any further claim against Enfield.” Ms Sivanandan pointed out that in May 2006 the Court of Appeal had chosen not to impose an extended civil restraint order on her despite knowing that she intended to bring a claim of misfeasance if she could not obtain an investigation into her complaints from Enfield.
(d) Ms Sivanandan appeals against the costs order.
A very brief outline of the relevant facts
On 22 July 1996 Ms Sivanandan commenced employment as a race equality officer. She worked at Enfield Race Equality Council, known by the acronym EREC. On 11 October 1996 she was suspended by EREC. On 9 December 1996 EREC held a disciplinary hearing. Ms Sivanandan said that she walked out of the hearing as she thought that the Panel was improperly constituted and that it should not have been EREC who held the disciplinary hearing.
By letter dated 11 December 1996 Ms Sivanandan was dismissed. Thus, Ms Sivanandan was employed by Enfield for five months performing duties for two and a half months. All of these events took place twelve years ago.
Previous proceedings
There have been innumerable hearings in proceedings between Ms Sivanandan and Enfield and I will merely highlight some of these.
On 10 March 1997 Ms Sivanandan lodged her first ET1 claim in the Employment Tribunal, naming Enfield and EREC, and later individuals on the executive committee of EREC and the Director as respondents. On 19 March 1997, in its ET3, Enfield denied that they were her employer.
On 8 September 1997 Ms Sivanandan issued a County Court summons against Enfield in relation to actions taken by Enfield in November and December 1996 and in January and February 1997, those latter months being after her employment ceased.
In the County Court proceedings Ms Sivanandan alleged a breach of the Race Relations Act 1976. However, proceedings brought by her in the Employment Tribunal were also brought under the Race Relations Act.
Ms Sivanandan says that the County Court proceedings were issued in 1997 as a protective measure since Enfield have denied that they were her employer. Accordingly, she understood that she could not pursue her claim in the Employment Tribunal if that contention were right.
On 24 October 1997 there was a preliminary hearing before the Employment Tribunal on whether Enfield was Ms Sivanandan's employer. The Employment Tribunal on that preliminary point found that Enfield was her employer, contrary to Enfield's contentions.
On 12 January 1998 Ms Sivanandan filed further and better particulars regarding her first County Court claim, alleging wrongful dismissal because the London Borough of Enfield's grievance and disciplinary procedures had not been followed in their dealing with complaints against her.
I then take some parts of the helpful chronology provided for my use by Mr Quinn, counsel for Enfield. These have been supplied to Ms Sivanandan. On 23 January 1998 Ms Sivanandan applied to the Stratford Employment Tribunal for leave to amend to add sixteen new respondents to her first claim. The application was refused. Ms Sivanandan lodged an appeal against that decision on the refusal.
On 2 April 1998 Enfield issued an application to strike out the first County Court claim. After certain other steps in both the County Court and the Tribunal proceedings, there was on 15 May 1998 an ex parte preliminary hearing before the employment appeal tribunal. Certain bias allegations were withdrawn by Ms Sivanandan.
On 20 May 1998, by a consent order, Ms Sivanandan's first County Court claim was withdrawn. On 2 February 1999 the employment appeal tribunal, Morison J, allowed some parts of Ms Sivanandan's appeal and adjourned others. There was in February 2000 a prehearing review before the Employment Tribunal at which a hearing of Ms Sivanandan's substantive claims made in her ET1 were fixed with a 35-day time estimate to commence on 5 September 2000.
On 5 September 2000, the substantive hearing before the Employment Tribunal commenced at which the allegations of race discrimination and other complaints by Ms Sivanandan against Enfield would have been heard and determined. However, for reasons for which are not relevant to these proceedings, Ms Sivanandan did not participate in that hearing and left it. The hearing did not continue. Ms Sivanandan's claim was struck out on the second day of the hearing. Ms Sivanandan, on 2 October 2000, lodged an appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal in respect of the striking out of her claim. There was a preliminary hearing before the employment appeal tribunal on 25 April 2001, and a further preliminary hearing in July 2001. The full hearing of Ms Sivanandan's appeal to the employment appeal tribunal occupied two days.
At paragraph 17 of his judgment Lindsay J in the Employment Appeal Tribunal noted the feature of Ms Sivanandan's litigation was repeated allegations of bias and prejudice against different chairmen in different tribunals. Her appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal was dismissed.
On 7 October 2002 Ms Sivanandan's application for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal was refused. On 9 December 2002 Ms Sivanandan issued her first High Court claim against Enfield alleging breach of contract, both before and following her dismissal. Judgment in her favour in default was given on 19 June 2003. Enfield applied for the judgment to be set aside and also for Ms Sivanandan's claim against Enfield to be struck out.
On 26 November 2003, Ms Sivanandan applied for permission to amend the particulars of her High Court claim. The claim at that stage was an assertion that Ms Sivanandan was still an employee of Enfield. She contended that she had not been validly dismissed since she had been purportedly dismissed by EREC.
On 17 February 2004 Ms Sivanandan lodged a second Employment Tribunal claim. In that claim Ms Sivanandan complained of Enfield's refusal to give her access to contractual grievance and disciplinary procedures to address the serious complaints that she had made. Ms Sivanandan contends that she withdrew her contractual claim before the Employment Tribunal, but the record does not bear that out.
The second Employment Tribunal claim, which I will return to later in this judgment, contained an allegation that officers and employees of Enfield acted in breach of their duties as public officers and their actions constitute misfeasance and misconduct in public office.
On 14 November 2003, Master Leslie had set aside judgment in default and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Amending or Discharging Civil Restraint Orders
...the Bar Standards Board), who had been notified that the order had been made, may have been 21 Sivanandan v London Borough of Enfield [2010] EWHC 3147 (QB). 110 Vexatious Litigants and Civil Restraint Orders considering taking action against her because the order had been made against her. ......
-
Rules and Procedure for Appealing Civil Restraint Orders
...the judge identified in the order for permission to apply to discharge or amend the order. 27 Sivanandan v London Borough of Enfield [2010] EWHC 3147 (QB). ...
-
Table of Cases
...[2012] EWHC 3062 (Admin) 2, 3 Shelley v Swift Advances plc, unreported, 6 February 2012 69 Sivanandan v London Borough of Enfield [2010] EWHC 3147 (QB) 109–10, 137, 147 Sivasubramaniam v Wandsworth County Court and Other [2002] EWCA Civ 1738, [2003] 1 WLR 475 126 Table of Cases xv Suppersto......
-
Extended Civil Restraint Orders
...made, may have been considering taking action because the order had been made against her. 20 Sivanandan v London Borough of Enfield [2010] EWHC 3147 (QB). PROTECTION AFFORDED BY EXTENDED CIVIL RESTRAINT ORDERS 4.28 Unless permission is obtained from a judge identified in the extended civil......