Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Personnel Today

Register
Log in
Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Vexatious claimsCase lawDisability discriminationDisabilityEmployment tribunals

Serial litigant banned from further tribunal claims

by Kate Hodgkiss 3 Mar 2015
by Kate Hodgkiss 3 Mar 2015

In DLA Piper’s latest case report, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) granted an indefinite restriction of proceedings order preventing further claims from being brought by a serial litigant who initiated multiple claims against employers that rejected his job applications.

Serial litigants and vexatious claims

Serial litigant who brought 30 employment cases in four years banned from tribunal claims

Unmeritorious claimant ordered to pay around £60,000 in costs

Age discrimination: employment tribunal strikes out job applicant’s claims against eight schools

Her Majesty’s Attorney General v Groves

Facts

Mr Groves brought at least 19 separate employment tribunal claims against various employers between April 2009 and October 2014. In 11 of those cases, he also brought appeals, all of which were dismissed as having no prospect of success.

Mr Groves claimed to be disabled with several conditions, including depression. The vast majority of his claims were against prospective employers that turned down his applications for a vacancy. His complaints were for disability discrimination.

The outcomes in the cases included the dismissal of three claims after consideration of their merits and the dismissal of seven claims as having no prospect of success. Three claims were withdrawn by Mr Groves, but only after the employers had gone to the trouble and expense of pleading answers to them. In four cases, cost orders were made against him.

As a result, an application was brought by the Attorney General for an order under s.33 of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996, under which proceedings can be restricted where habitual and persistent claims that are vexatious have been made without reasonable grounds.

Decision

The EAT granted the order against Mr Groves, restricting him from making any applications to the employment tribunal without the prior leave of the EAT.

The EAT set out the criteria that had to be met before making such an order. The EAT stressed that it had to be satisfied that Mr Groves had habitually and persistently and without any reasonable grounds instituted proceedings, or made vexatious applications in any proceedings whether in a tribunal or in the appeal tribunal, and whether against the same person or different persons.

If those conditions are not met, no order under s.33 can be made. If, as in this case, the conditions are met, the employment judge has discretion as to whether or not to make an order. In exercising such discretion, the judge should bear in mind the interests of a party to take civil proceedings, but also bear in mind that an order under s.33 acts as a filter not a barrier. The judge should also consider the interests of the public in being protected against abusive claims.

The EAT concluded that Mr Groves had commenced a great deal of litigation in a short time and that many of those claims involved identical or very similar complaints. The employment judge described Mr Groves’ pattern of claims and appeals as a “knee-jerk reaction” to failure. He cited Mr Groves’ application prior to this case being heard that he be given leave to appeal the decision should it go against him. This, the EAT held, was indicative of his lack of regard for the merits of his claims.

The EAT also considered the substantial cost and inconvenience to the employers to his meritless and unnecessary claims.

As there was no reason for the EAT to suppose that Mr Groves would stop acting vexatiously in the future, an indefinite order was justified. Permission to appeal was denied.

Implications

The case sets out the criteria that must be satisfied before a tribunal will make a s.33 order preventing vexatious litigation.

Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance

Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday

OptOut
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

It is clear that this is an extreme example of a litigant who has brought numerous unsuccessful claims and had no regard for the merits of his claims. However, it does give employers an idea of what might be considered to be a vexatious litigant.

Importantly, it states that being unsuccessful is not enough: the litigant must have no consideration for the underlying merits of a claim to be categorised as “vexatious”.

Kate Hodgkiss

Kate Hodgkiss is a partner at DLA Piper.

previous post
Tribunal watch: Re-enactment of Ghost film scene not sexual harassment
next post
TUPE service provision changes – which employees transfer?

You may also like

Restaurant tips should be included in holiday pay

21 May 2025

Consultation launched after Supreme Court ‘sex’ ruling

20 May 2025

Black security manager awarded £360k after decade of...

20 May 2025

Minister defends Employment Rights Bill at Acas conference

16 May 2025

CBI chair Soames accuses ministers of not listening...

16 May 2025

Union rep teacher awarded £370k for unfair dismissal

15 May 2025

EHRC bows to pressure and extends gender consultation

15 May 2025

Tribunal finds need for degree in redundancy selection...

14 May 2025

Construction workers win compensation claim against defunct employer

9 May 2025

NHS worker awarded £29k after Darth Vader comparison

8 May 2025

  • 2025 Employee Communications Report PROMOTED | HR and leadership...Read more
  • The Majority of Employees Have Their Eyes on Their Next Move PROMOTED | A staggering 65%...Read more
  • Prioritising performance management: Strategies for success (webinar) WEBINAR | In today’s fast-paced...Read more
  • Self-Leadership: The Key to Successful Organisations PROMOTED | Eletive is helping businesses...Read more
  • Retaining Female Talent: Four Ways to Reduce Workplace Drop Out PROMOTED | International Women’s Day...Read more

Personnel Today Jobs
 

Search Jobs

PERSONNEL TODAY

About us
Contact us
Browse all HR topics
Email newsletters
Content feeds
Cookies policy
Privacy policy
Terms and conditions

JOBS

Personnel Today Jobs
Post a job
Why advertise with us?

EVENTS & PRODUCTS

The Personnel Today Awards
The RAD Awards
Employee Benefits
Forum for Expatriate Management
OHW+
Whatmedia

ADVERTISING & PR

Advertising opportunities
Features list 2025

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • Linkedin


© 2011 - 2025 DVV Media International Ltd

Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+