Vexatious Litigant - Fetter on access to justice?

There exists a rarely used provision in the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 - to declare a person a vexatious litigant.

To do so, one needs to satisfy an extremely high threshold as any declared vexatious litigant would thereafter not be allowed to commence any further legal suits except by leave of court. The litigant concerned must be deemed to have “habitually and persistently and without reasonable cause instituted vexatious legal proceedings”.

Once that threshold is crossed, the fundamental right of access to justice can be restricted. This happened in a recent case of Tan Sri Dato Kam Woon Wah and Ors v Dato Sri Andrew Kam Tai Yeow.

In the grounds of judgment, the High Court set out an astonishing list of serial court filings in respect of issues decided many times over. Attempts were made to recuse no less than 12 judges at different levels.

In the end, the learned Judge found that access to justice, whilst fundamental, cannot be used as a tool for harassment and oppression.

“[49] … The authorities make clear that while access to the courts is fundamental, it is not unqualified. When litigation is pursued not for legitimate redress but as a means to harass, revisit settled matters, or weaponise court processes, the line is crossed.

[50] The present case exemplifies that danger. The Defendant's conduct-marked by the persistent pursuit of claims already decided, and the proliferation of collateral proceedings—has significantly burdened the Plaintiffs and the judicial process. It is precisely to forestall such misuse that the law on vexatious litigants exists. While the Federal Constitution guarantees liberty and equality under Articles 5 and 8 respectively, these rights are to be exercised in accordance with the law. The Constitution does not confer an unlimited right of access to justice; rather, such access must be tempered by legal boundaries and respect for final judicial determinations. Courts are empowered to act when access to justice is transtormed into a tool for harassment and oppression.”

See grounds of judgment here:

https://tinyurl.com/2hryr962