HM Attorney General v Taheri: EAT 25 Feb 2022

Practice and Procedure – restrictions of proceedings order/vexatious litigant – section 33 of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996
The Respondent had made over 40 claims in the Employment Tribunal over a period of some ten years, all relating to unsuccessful applications for employment. Many of the claims had been withdrawn before they could be determined on their merits, sometimes this was after applications had been made to strike out/for a deposit order, in other cases it was said that the claim had been settled, although the terms of any such settlements were not known. Four claims had been struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success and/or as being vexatious. In other cases, ETs had made deposit orders and the claims had been struck out when the Respondent failed to make the requisite payment. Of the two cases that had proceeded to trial, both had been dismissed, with orders of costs being made against the Respondent. A significant number of claims had been pursued and/or conducted vexatiously, with the Respondent making threats of adverse publicity or regulatory referrals against the legal professionals acting for the other party; more generally, there was evidence to suggest that the Respondent had used the ET process to put pressure on would-be employers to enter into low value settlements.
The material demonstrated that the conditions laid down by section 33 Employment Tribunals Act 1996 were made out and that it was appropriate to make an RPO of indefinite duration in this case. Application allowed.


The Honourable Mrs Justice Eady DBE, President


[2022] EAT 35




Employment Tribunals Act 1996 33


England and Wales


Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.674550