The high court has made a restraining order against a woman preventing her from issuing further legal proceedings over her allegation she was kicked in the back by a teacher while at school in the 1970s.
Deemster Sharon Roberts warned Patricia Anne Kelly she would be sent to prison for contempt of court if she disobeyed the order.
Ms Kelly, of Port Erin, alleged she sustained personal injuries when she received a kick to the back from a school teacher while a pupil at Castle Rushen High School in 1974.
In 2000, she brought a claim against the Department of Education which was dismissed for being out of time.
But in 2011 she issued further proceedings against the same department as well as the Department of Home Affairs and the Department of Health. She also lodged a petition of doleance against the Department of Home Affairs.
All were deemed time barred except the claim against the Department of Health, for alleged negligent treatment, which remains live. Ms Kelly presented a petition of redress of grievance on Tynwald Day 2007 in connection with the same allegations.
Then, in February this year, Ms Kelly made a new application seeking an extension of time to submit a medical report in her case against the Department of Health, and to revive her claim against the Department of Education.
She argued that Deemster Roberts should not have ruled on her case as she had been a teacher at the time of the alleged incident, her husband was a teacher, and she had been a partner in the law firm Dickinson Cruickshank which had represented the Department of Education.
In a further application made in May, Ms Kelly claimed she had been denied the right of the fair trial under article 6 of the Human Rights Act because of this alleged conflict of interest and requested her case be transferred to the Chancery Court where she would seek ‘restorative justice’.
Mrs Roberts rejected the suggestion of bias, pointing out she had been a teacher at a different school - Peel - in 1974 and her husband, who is now retired, was not a teacher at the relevant time.
She said she had never been part of the litigation department of Dickinson Cruickshank and never had any involvement whatsoever with Ms Kelly’s legal proceedings from 2000 and 2011.
Mrs Roberts said: ‘This is a clear frivolous and vexatious application on the part of Ms Kelly. It is entirely without merit.
‘The application to transfer is a collateral attack on decisions already made. It is an abuse of process and totally without merit.’
Dismissing both the February and May applications, the Deemster made a general civil restraint order against Ms Kelly preventing her from issuing further court claims or applications without first getting consent.
She said: ‘It is now readily apparent that Ms Kelly has persisted in making a claim or applications which are totally without merit.’
Ms Kelly was given the opportunity to make representations before a deadline of August 30 but chose not to do so.
The restraint order will remain in force until September 2015.
It states: ‘You must obey the direction contained in this order. If you do not you will be guilty of contempt of court and you may be sent to prison.’
If you would like to comment on this story, please email email@example.com