Vexatious Conduct in Legal Proceedings: A Common Strategy and How to Avoid the Trap

What the label means

In litigation, words such as “vexatious”, “unreasonable”, “abusive” or “scandalous” should not be used casually. They are conduct labels. They suggest that a party is not simply advancing a weak argument, but is using the legal process in a way that wastes resources, causes improper pressure, obstructs fair disposal or departs from ordinary litigation discipline.

The exact test depends on the forum and the application being made. In civil proceedings, the court may have strike-out and case-management powers where a statement of case discloses no reasonable grounds, amounts to an abuse of process, obstructs the just disposal of proceedings, or follows non-compliance with procedural rules or orders. In tribunal and family proceedings, similar concepts may arise under different rules and language.

Why the allegation matters

A conduct allegation can change the centre of gravity in a case. Instead of asking whether the claim has merit, the court or tribunal may be invited to examine the claimant’s behaviour: emails, applications, tone, public comments, repeated allegations, failure to comply with directions, or refusal to narrow issues.

That is why claimants should treat conduct discipline as part of litigation strategy. A poorly worded email, an excessive application, an unsupported allegation or an angry public post may be used to suggest that the claimant is acting from hostility rather than evidence.

This does not mean that claimants should be silent about misconduct or unfair procedure. It means they should raise concerns in a way that is accurate, evidenced and proportionate. The stronger the allegation, the more important the evidential foundation.

1. 1
   The claimant reacts under pressure.

   A difficult letter, missed deadline, adverse order or perceived injustice triggers an emotional response.

2. 2
   The response becomes evidence.

   Emails, messages, applications or posts are placed before the court or tribunal.

3. 3
   The focus shifts.

   The opponent argues that the claimant’s conduct, not just the claim, justifies procedural consequences.

4. 4
   The merits are obscured.

   Time is spent defending behaviour instead of advancing the evidence and legal issues.

The emotional risk in litigation

Litigation is stressful. Family disputes, employment claims, possession disputes, professional negligence, whistleblowing, discrimination and financial claims often involve personal harm as well as legal issues. A claimant may feel ignored, provoked, misrepresented or trapped inside a process they do not trust.

That emotional pressure is real. It is also risky. Courts and tribunals decide cases through evidence, procedure and legal tests. A communication that feels justified in the moment may later be read coldly, outside its emotional context, and used to challenge credibility or proportionality.

Communication discipline: respond rather than react

Email is often where conduct problems begin. It is quick, informal and easy to send while angry. In litigation, however, every email should be treated as if it may be read by a judge. The same applies to letters, portal messages, hearing notes, text messages and social media posts.

A safe litigation communication usually does four things: identifies the issue, states the relevant fact or document, explains the practical consequence, and asks for a specific response. It does not need accusations, sarcasm, threats or repeated commentary on the other side’s motives.

Records, social media and the evidential trail

A claimant should assume that the record will be scrutinised. That does not mean becoming silent or passive. It means keeping a clear chronology, preserving documents, recording procedural events and separating evidence from commentary.

Social media requires particular care. Public posts about ongoing proceedings may be used to suggest hostility, pressure, reputational attack or disregard for the process. Where proceedings are live or sensitive, the safest approach is usually not to post about the dispute at all.

Contemporaneous records are different. They are useful. A claimant should maintain a private litigation log recording dates, communications, deadlines, documents received, requests made, replies given and any conduct that may later need to be raised. The log should be factual, not performative.

A practical protocol for avoiding the trap

The safest approach is to build conduct discipline into the way the case is managed. This is especially important for litigants in person, who may not have a solicitor filtering correspondence or advising when not to respond.

The closing point

Allegations of vexatious or unreasonable conduct can be serious. They may affect credibility, costs, case management and, in extreme cases, whether a claim or application is allowed to continue. Claimants should therefore treat their own conduct as part of the evidence.

The answer is not to become timid. It is to become disciplined. Raise legitimate concerns. Challenge unfairness. Object to procedural abuse. But do so through evidence, proportionate language and formal routes.