Abuse of process

Case 1: The facts

Frank Palma was employed by a local authority as a residential child care worker. In 2001 he brought a claim for unlawful deduction of wages relating to payment for night working, although he subsequently withdrew the claim.

He brought another claim, based on the same facts, in 2003. This was dismissed because it was "res judicata" - a legal principle which aims to ensure that, once an issue has been settled in the courts, that is the end of it. The effect is to stop someone issuing a claim based on an issue that has already been heard.

In 2005 Palma brought a claim for breach of contract, dealing with the same issue, in the county court, Again, he subsequently withdrew this claim.

When he brought another claim in 2006 dealing with the same issue (payment for sleeping-in duties), his employer claimed that he was not entitled to bring the claim.

The ruling

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) found that Palma's claim was based on the same facts as his previous ones. Although the original contractual terms had been replaced by a new collective agreement, the term relating to payment for sleep-ins had not changed.

The EAT therefore held that Palma could not bring his claim. He had attempted to litigate the same issue on four separate occasions, and this amounted to an abuse of process.

Bristol City Council v Palma EAT/0502/06