In the case of Her Majesty’s Attorney General v Groves the Employment Appeal Tribunal made an order against the Claimant, an HR professional, to stop him issuing vexatious proceedings. In the past five years Mr Groves had brought 19 individual claims during which he had submitted numerous appeals. The majority of these claims involved complaints following on from failed job applications. All had been unsuccessful at differing stages.
The EAT found that Mr Groves had persistently and without reasonable grounds issued vexatious applications. It was evident from the history of claims that Mr Groves had developed a knee-jerk reaction by lodging an appeal to any adverse decision made against him. In this specific case Mr Groves had already signified his intention to appeal any order even before it had been made by the EAT. The EAT said that such an order is a mechanism to protect the public against expense and inconvenience. It was clear Mr Groves had not leant from previous decisions made against him and that his past conduct clearly demonstrated he was very unlikely to stop making claims in the future.
In practice it will be very rare a Tribunal will grant a restriction order. However, this case demonstrates that the Employment Appeal Tribunal is willing to make such an order where there are clear and consistent examples of vexatious behaviour.