High Court imposes restrictions on vexatious litigant Adrian Badita

Introduction

The High Court has issued a Civil Proceedings Order (CPO) against Adrian Badita, following an application by the Attorney General. The court found that Mr Badita had engaged in vexatious litigation over several years, with numerous unsuccessful claims that were deemed abusive and threatening.

The Application

The Attorney General applied for the CPO under section 42(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981, highlighting the volume of unsuccessful claims filed by Mr Badita. These claims, which spanned over eight or nine years, were all struck out or summarily dismissed due to their vexatious nature. The application was supported by statements from a lawyer in the Attorney General's Office.

Background

Mr Badita, a Romanian national, was dismissed by DHL in 2016 and has since filed numerous claims against various recruitment agencies and potential employers, alleging discrimination and blacklisting. His claims were based on conspiracy theories involving high-profile figures and were repeatedly found to be without merit.

Volume and Nature of Claims

The court reviewed eight specific claims filed by Mr Badita, all of which were unsuccessful and struck out as vexatious. These claims involved allegations of discrimination and conspiracy, with Mr Badita asserting that he was blacklisted by DHL and other entities in a wide-reaching conspiracy.

Legal Framework

Under section 42(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981, the court may issue a CPO if it is satisfied that a person has habitually and persistently instituted vexatious proceedings. The court found that Mr Badita's conduct met this threshold, as he repeatedly filed meritless claims and engaged in abusive correspondence with court officials.

Abusive Conduct

Mr Badita's conduct throughout his litigation was marked by abusive and threatening language directed at judges, court staff, and legal representatives. His communications included racist, sexist, and derogatory remarks, which the court found to be unacceptable and disgraceful.

Decision

The court granted the CPO, prohibiting Mr Badita from instituting or continuing civil proceedings without the High Court's permission. The court noted that an indefinite CPO was appropriate given the scale and nature of Mr Badita's vexatious litigation.

Conclusion

This decision underscores the court's commitment to protecting the judicial process from abuse by vexatious litigants. The CPO serves as a necessary filter to prevent further misuse of court resources by Mr Badita.

Learn More

To understand the implications of vexatious litigation and court orders, see BeCivil's guide to UK Employment Law.