Vexatious litigant blocked from making further claims

In an unusual case, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has granted an application by the Attorney General and imposed an indefinite restriction of proceedings order (RPO) against a serial litigant.

This prevents him from bringing or continuing tribunal proceedings without the EAT’s permission (HM Attorney-General v Taheri).

Mr Taheri had a pattern of bringing discrimination claims following unsuccessful job applications and seeking substantial sums and nuisance payments. He brought more than 40 employment tribunal claims in 10 years. If he did not get a settlement, he frequently withdrew claims or threatened negative publicity to the respondents, or referrals to regulators for their representatives.

The EAT considered the conditions for making an RPO, under section 33 of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996:

• the “habitual and persistent” bringing of proceedings;

• bringing claims without any reasonable ground; and

• instituting vexatious proceedings.

The EAT found these conditions were met. It observed that many of Taheri’s cases had either been struck out, withdrawn before their merits could be decided, or that he had failed to pay deposit orders made against him.

Although the EAT acknowledged that it was possible someone in Taheri’s position might face discrimination in a competitive labour market, the balance fell firmly in favour of making an indefinite RPO.

The intention was for this to act as “a filter rather than a barrier” — he could still apply to the EAT for permission to start or continue proceedings.

https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2022/35.html