Jason Elliott was called to the Bar of Northern Ireland in 2013 and is the Associate Head of School of Law at Ulster University. As a practising barrister, he has developed a largely civil practice representing individuals, companies and public bodies in litigation. This covers a wide range of areas including personal injuries, wills and employment law. In terms of employment law, he has represented both applicants and respondents in the Industrial Tribunal. At Ulster University, Jason lectures extensively on the civil areas of practise such as Equity and Trusts and delivers employment law lectures for both undergraduate and postgraduate students.
An order was made finding that the respondent is a vexatious litigant following more than 50 unsuccessful claims to the Tribunal.
The Attorney General applied for a restriction of proceedings against the respondent on the basis that she was regarded as a vexatious litigant. Such power is held within Section 33 of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 [The position in NI is that the Tribunal can request the Attorney General to review a situation under Rule 99 and then the Attorney General can make an application under Section 32 of the Judicature (NI) Act 1978].
The respondent had issued over 50 Tribunal claims including 13 in 2024 alone. These, largely, arose from unsuccessful job applications and the allegations were mainly in relation to discrimination, whistleblowing detriment and unpaid wages. None of the claims had succeeded and from the materials available to the Tribunal none had settled.
In addition to the quantum of cases there were various cases which were struck out for having no reasonable prospect of success, dismissed following non-attendance and there were many instances of failure to comply with directions and making unsubstantiated allegations of dishonesty against employers.
The EAT held that the test for restriction of proceedings was made out by the Attorney General and the order could be made. They found that the respondent’s approach to proceedings imposed burdens on opposing parties as well as the Tribunal system. It was found that the quantum of claims and the requests for interim relief (which had all been refused) was regarded as a ‘scheme’ of some kind rather than being engaged in any genuine pursuit of justice. The EAT though refused to make an order to preclude the respondent from acting as a McKenzie Friend – the EAT did not have jurisdiction to make such an order and there was no evidence showing that the respondent had sought to act as a McKenzie Friend.
This case arose by way of a law firm contacting the Attorney General’s office to raise an issue in terms of the number of claims that had been brought by this one individual. This demonstrates the process that can be followed if there are similar litigants that are popping up with unsubstantiated claims. The Tribunal found that there was some ‘scheme’ being employed rather than a pursuit of justice.
You can read the case in full here.
Continue reading
We help hundreds of people like you understand how the latest changes in employment law impact your business.
Please log in to view the full article.
What you'll get:
- Help understand the ramifications of each important case from NI, GB and Europe
- Ensure your organisation's policies and procedures are fully compliant with NI law
- 24/7 access to all the content in the Legal Island Vault for research case law and HR issues
- Receive free preliminary advice on workplace issues from the employment team
Already a subscriber? Log in now or start a free trial
