The claimant in this case was the Attorney General who was using her power under Section 33 of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 to make a restrictions of proceedings order against the respondent.  In Northern Ireland such applications are dealt with under Regulation 99 of the Industrial Tribunals and Fair Employment Tribunal (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations (NI) 2020.

The background of this case was that the respondent had commenced over 40 claims in the Employment Tribunal over a ten-year period.  All of the claims had similar backgrounds in that they were brought against employers to whom the respondent had applied for employment with and for which he was unsuccessful.   Most of these claims were withdrawn before it could get to the point where the merits were adjudicated or a strike out application could be considered.  Additionally, there were some cases which had settled, although the terms of such settlements were unknown.   Only four of the cases that had been brought were struck out.  Two of the cases that the respondent did bring made it to hearing with both being rejected and cost orders being made against the respondent.

The conduct of the respondent was considered; he had made a series of threats against the legal professionals that he came up against and evidence was put forward that the respondent had used the Tribunal process as a way to pressurise employers into making small settlements to get the case to ‘go away’.

The respondent resisted the application citing that it was ‘vexatious’ and that it went against his fair trial rights under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.  In terms of applications seeking to restrict an individual from issuing proceedings, the Tribunal noted that it usually requires an element of repeated claims or applications against one body or individual.  However, in Attorney General v Roberts it was acknowledged that the position could be slightly different in the employment context.  There it could be seen that the repetition comes with the type of claim that is being brought rather than it being against the same respondent.  In terms of the respondent’s conduct, the Tribunal examined the cases that had been brought determining that litigation was brought habitually and persistently without any reasonable grounds.  Therefore, the order was made meaning that the respondent will no longer be able to bring proceedings without obtaining the permission from the EAT.

Practical Lessons

There are regularly situations in which an individual may continue to bring proceedings with no prospect of success and employers/respondents feel that they must continually go to expense and time in trying to defend against these types of case.  Whilst strike outs and deposit orders may be useful tools the restriction of proceedings order may be more powerful in serious cases.  As outlined, there must be persistence but that may be through the repetition of the type of case rather than it being against one respondent.  This may be borne in mind in terms of inviting the Tribunal or Attorney General to use their powers under Regulation 99 of the 2020 Regulations.
https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/uk/cases/UKEAT/2022/35.html&query=Attorney+General+v+Taheri+.2022