By LYNAIRE MUNNINGS
Tribune Staff Reporter
lmunnings@tribunemedia.net
THE Supreme Court judge declared a man a “vexatious litigant”, barring him from filing new lawsuits or continuing existing legal actions without the court’s permission.
Justice Loren Klein ruling follows nearly two decades of persistent litigation by Ricardo Pratt over land disputes, particularly concerning the John Bootle Tract in Grand Bahama.
Mr Pratt, representing himself in court, has filed numerous legal claims regarding ownership of various properties, asserting his descent from John Bootle, a recipient of a Crown Grant in 1818. He claimed to be “the lawful great-great-great-great-grandson of the late John Thomas Bootle, Esq.” and therefore entitled to parcels of land by inheritance.
The court found that Mr Pratt had pursued these claims “habitually and persistently and without reasonable ground”, bringing legal proceedings that were either repetitive or lacking merit. The Office of the Attorney General argued that his actions amounted to abusing the judicial system, prompting the application under Section 29 of the Supreme Court Act.
Mr Pratt opposed the ruling at every stage, raising multiple legal and procedural objections. He argued that the AG’s application was invalid due to filing errors, including the absence of a court seal. However, Justice Klein dismissed these objections, saying: “The proceedings were not a nullity, whatever procedural errors may have occurred initially with the forms.”
Additionally, Mr Pratt sought to cross-examine government attorneys and a retired deputy registrar regarding affidavits filed in the case. The court denied this request, ruling that judicial decisions cannot be challenged through cross-examination. Justice Klein emphasised: “There is no basis in law or principle on which a claimant can seek to cross-examine any judicial officer on a ruling.”
Mr Pratt claimed that restricting his ability to litigate violated his constitutional right to access the courts. The court rejected this argument, citing similar legal precedents in the UK and The Bahamas. Justice Klein noted that while access to justice is fundamental, it “cannot be at large or absolute” and must be balanced against the need to prevent misuse of court resources.
“The constitution does not confer on any person the right to subject a third party to frivolous and vexatious litigation nor is there any provision in the constitution which prevents a court from summarily striking out an action if it is scandalous, frivolous, vexatious or otherwise an abuse of the process of the court,” the judge wrote.
Justice Klein’s ruling imposes strict limitations on Mr Pratt’s ability to file lawsuits, as he is now required to obtain prior approval from the court before initiating any new legal proceedings or continuing existing cases. This restriction applies to cases he files personally and those he brings in a representative capacity.
Justice Klein, acknowledging the extensive history of Mr Pratt’s litigation, concluded that the court must take action to prevent further abuse.
“The essential vice of habitual and persistent litigation is keeping on and on litigating when earlier litigation has been unsuccessful and when on any rational and objective assessment the time has come to stop,” he wrote.
The Attorney General was directed to draft a formal order reflecting the court’s decision.
Commenting has been disabled for this item.