Frivolous or vexatious
In this article we are going to delve into Frivolous or vexatious, a topic that has been the subject of interest and debate for a long time. Frivolous or vexatious is a topic that has captured the attention of academics, experts and the general public, generating a series of conflicting opinions and diverse positions. Over the years, Frivolous or vexatious has been the subject of study in different fields of knowledge, which has enriched the debate around this topic. In this article we will try to shed light on Frivolous or vexatious, exploring its different dimensions and perspectives to achieve a deeper understanding of its importance and relevance today.
In law, frivolous or vexatious is a term used to challenge a complaint or a legal proceeding being heard as lacking in merit, or to deny, dismiss or strike out any ensuing judicial or non-judicial processes.
The term is used in several jurisdictions, such as England & Wales, Ireland, Canada and New Zealand. While the term is referenced in laws and regulations, it is often not defined by statute, being developed instead by decisions of the courts.
General meaning
"Frivolous" and "vexatious" generally mean different things, however both are typically grouped together as they relate to the same basic concept of a claim or complaint (or a series of many) not being brought in good faith:
- A "frivolous" claim or complaint is one that has no serious purpose or value. Often a frivolous claim is one about a matter that is so trivial, meritless on its face, or without substance that investigation would be disproportionate in terms of time and cost. The implication is that the claim has not been brought in good faith because it clearly has no reasonable prospect of success and/or is not significant enough to warrant its mention.[1]
- A "vexatious" claim or complaint is one being pressed specifically to cause harassment, annoyance, frustration, worry, or even bring financial cost (such as the engagement of a defence lawyer) to their defendant or respondent.[2]
In Ireland
Meaning
The term is not defined in statute law, but has been defined in legal cases. One case was Keaveney v. Geraghty,[3] where the plaintiff's libel proceedings were stayed on the grounds that they were, inter alia, frivolous, vexatious, and "an abuse of the process of the Court". The plaintiff was effectively declared a vexatious litigant.
A case is frivolous if it has no reasonable chance of succeeding, and is vexatious if it would bring hardship on the opposite party to defend against an unnecessary and inevitably unsuccessful claim.[4]
Usage
The term is used in many Acts of the Oireachtas and statutory instruments. For example, the Data Protection Commissioner shall investigate any complaint made to him about the contravention of the Data Protection Acts unless he is of the opinion that it is frivolous or vexatious[5] and the head of a government department may refuse access to records under the Freedom of Information Act if the request is frivolous or vexatious.[6] The High Court and Supreme Court may order judgement to be entered on an action or for it to be stayed or dismissed where an action or defence is frivolous or vexatious.[7]
See also
References
- ^ Communications Ombudsman FAQs on frivolous and vexatious complaints
- ^ Energy Ombudsman FAQs on frivolous and vexatious complaints
- ^ I.R. 551
- ^ Justice Barron, Farley vs Ireland & Others, IESC 60 at page 1521
- ^ Section 10 (b) (i) of the Data Protection Act, 1988
- ^ Section 10 (1) (e) of the Freedom of Information Act, 1997
- ^ Order 19, Rule 28 of the Rules of the Superior Courts
Further reading
- "Isaac Wunder" orders, which may be made in the event of frivolous or vexatious litigation, unconstitutional
- A case issuing such an order
- Unconstitutional