Tribunal proceedings

The facts

The Attorney-General applied for a "restriction of proceedings" order against Donald D'Souza, saying that he had consistently brought tribunal claims with no reasonable grounds and was likely to continue to pursue vexatious litigation.

An order can be applied for under section 33 of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 if someone has "habitually and persistently" instituted "vexatious" proceedings. It prevents that person from bringing any further tribunal proceedings unless given leave by the EAT.

The ruling

The EAT said that a "vexatious" case is one with little or no basis in law, which subjects the defendant to "inconvenience, harassment and expense" out of all proportion to any likely gain, and which involves an abuse of process of the court. "Habitually and persistently" usually means bringing a number of claims involving the same issue against the same party, or against a number of parties sequentially that should have all been heard together.

The EAT noted that section 33 had been upheld as compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights (Attorney-General v Wheen [2001] IRLR 91), and said a balance had to be struck between someone's right to institute proceedings and the reasonable protection of those who are repeatedly subject to abusive claims. It granted the restriction of proceedings order.

Her Majesty's Attorney General v D'Souza UKEAT/0139/04