In HM’s Attorney General v Deman the Employment Appeals Tribunal made a restriction against the claimant, a Mr Deman, on both grounds under S 33 ETA 1996. This was novel as previous authorities had only covered proceedings as opposed to applications. The order made prevented him from instigating both vexatious proceedings and applications so was wider in scope than previous cases.
Such an order is only exceptionally granted as it denies a claimant arguably a right to trial and so is draconian.
However it is a useful tool for employers to prevent continued claims being made without merit that necessitate time and cost and in defending.
The exercise gives the claimant first an opportunity to be heard and the test is high to ensure fairness in that habitual and persistent claims have had to be made that have no reasonable ground of claim or success.
Such an order in fact does not prevent the claimant from making future applications/proceedings but s/he must first seek permission of the EAT.
Here Mr Deman was an Indian/American academic economist who worked at Queen’s University Belfast and who brought more than 60 tribunal claims against 20 institutions on racial discrimination grounds for failing to short-list him. Mr Deman applied for between 70 and 1000 posts apparently.
The AG became involved after request by a judge who was constantly cited as a witness by the claimant.
The EAT found against Mr Deman under both S33 (a) and (b) and exercised its discretion to make an indefinite order restricting his conduct.
Common themes discovered and findings made included:
- The involvement of the same supporting council and society which meant three parties caused complications, confusion and suspicion of collusion;
- Mr Deman’s belief that the tribunal system was institutionally racist;
- His obsession that he was a victim;
- He brought claims otherwise than for compensation or for vindication of his rights-something outwith the designs of the tribunal system;
- Regular claims of bias;
- Applications for unnecessary and irrelevant witness orders and
- Constant disruptions to the trial lists by last minute adjournment applications on spurious grounds.
The case shows how courts and tribunals may deal with unreasonable litigants who have no real prospect of success and who seek to abuse the system.
