HM Courts and Tribunals Service

3. Ms O complains HMCTS staff prevented her from having an oral hearing of her applications to the court.

4. Ms O explains she is the subject of a Senior Courts Order and because of this and what happened, she has been unable to get employment in the field of law or as a teacher because teaching agencies will not clear her to work for them. Ms O says this has left her without employment or an income for many years.

5. Ms O wants a written apology from HMCTS. She also wants a six-figure payment for loss of income, loss of opportunity to contribute to a pension, stress and distress, injury to feelings and embarrassment.

6. In 2006 Ms O was made the subject of a Civil Proceedings Order (CPO) under Section 42 of the Senior Courts Act 1981. This order prohibits Ms O from carrying out litigation (taking legal action) without first getting permission from the High Court in London.

7. Ms O has a law degree and in 2015 qualified to teach law in further education settings. Ms O registered with five teaching agencies and says none of them have offered her any interviews or assignments. Ms O believes this is due to the CPO.

8. The official website of the judiciary (www.judiciary.uk) explains Section 42 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 gives the High Court power to issue a CPO restricting an individual who is found to be a vexatious litigant (individuals who persistently take legal action against others in cases without any merit) from bringing any proceedings before any court without the permission of the High Court. This power also extends to vexatious litigation in an Employment Tribunal or Employment Appeal Tribunal under the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 where a Restriction of Proceedings Order (RPO) can also be granted.

11. Before we decide if we should do a detailed investigation of a complaint, we look at whether there are signs the organisation has got something wrong. We do this by comparing what should have happened with what did happen. We have done this and have not seen any signs that something has gone wrong.

12. Ms O made an application for an appeal hearing to the court. Ms O told us all the papers she submitted to court were not given to the judge by HMCTS and she was not given the opportunity of the hearing that she paid for.

13. HMCTS explained in its appeal response to Ms O that all the documents she provided were referred to a judge and they said she needed to apply for permission to appeal in the High Court. HMCTS then explained the process she needed to follow if she was unhappy about the way the judge had behaved.

14. The HMCTS Complaint Handling Guidance states the following:

‘What we can’t investigate through the administrative complaints process Judicial decisions – If the customer is complaining about a decision made by a judge being incorrect, the proper course of action for them to consider is whether to appeal the decision. HMCTS cannot help the customer decide this or resolve it through its administrative process so HMCTS suggest they seek legal advice.’

15. Our Principles of Good Administration say organisation should: • act in line with the law and with regard for the rights of those concerned • act in line with its policy and guidance • be open and clear about policies and procedures and make sure that information and any advice provided is clear, accurate and complete.

16. It is our view that HMCTS followed our principles by acting in line with the law by passing Ms O’s application to a judge for their directions. It then explained it was unable to consider complaints about judicial decisions and what actions Ms O needed to take to progress with her application. We recognise it was frustrating for Ms O to be told she needed to apply to the High Court in London due to the CPO that was in place. As this was not something HMCTS were responsible for or could change, we will take no further action on this complaint.

1. We have carefully considered Ms O’s complaint about HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS). We have seen no sign that anything went wrong.

2. We recognise it was frustrating for Ms O to be told that a judge had directed she needed to apply to the High Court in London to submit an appeal. As this was a judge’s decision and not due to the actions of HMCTS, we cannot say it was responsible for this.