Restriction of proceedings

Case 5: The facts

Mr Ayovuare had lodged 50 tribunal applications over a six-year period. Most were claims over the failure to shortlist or appoint him. Many of the applications were against the same employers and there was no evidence of Ayovuare having attempted to establish why he had been rejected before lodging his claims. The Attorney General applied for an order to prevent him from taking any more claims.

The ruling

The EAT held that this was one of those rare cases where it would be appropriate to grant a "restriction of proceedings" order, which would mean that Ayovuare would need the specific permission of the EAT before any future claim could be dealt with. The EAT based its decision on the facts that he had brought proceedings without reasonable grounds and had been "spectacularly unsuccessful" in his applications, the overwhelming majority of which had been rejected.

HM Attorney General v Ayovuare EAT/0614/03