Vexatious claimants in the employment tribunals 

Everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing to determine their civil rights; this is codified by Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. However, there are rare instances of vexatious proceedings brought by employees with the aim of extorting the protection offered by the employment tribunals. 

On 12 June 2025, in Solicitors Regulation Authority Ltd and others v Khan [2025] EWHC 1378 (KB), the High Court issued a General Civil Restraint Order (GCRO) against Mr Zakir Khan, a self-represented litigant who had brought over 40 employment-related claims, primarily targeting law firms and public bodies following unsuccessful job applications. The Honourable Judge Emma Kelly found Mr Khan’s claims to be “persistent” and “totally without merit,” with no successful outcomes. The GCRO now prohibits Mr Khan from initiating further proceedings in the employment tribunals and the Employment Appeal Tribunal without prior permission from the court.  

The courts recognise that repeated, meritless claims amount to an abuse of process, imposing significant burdens on employers and the tribunal system. However, there is a high bar to secure judicial intervention in vexatious proceedings. 

What are vexatious proceedings? 

In HM Attorney General v Barker [2000] 1 FLR 759, Lord Bingham MR defined vexatious proceedings as those which: 

“…have little or no basis in law (or at least no discernible basis); that whatever the intention of the proceeding may be, its effect is to subject the defendant to inconvenience, harassment and expense out of all proportion to any gain likely to accrue to the claimant; and that it involves an abuse of the process of the court.” 

Such conduct may involve a claimant habitually bringing claims against multiple employers or recruitment bodies, for example following unsuccessful job applications or minor workplace disputes, without any reasonable legal foundation. 

What can be done about vexatious proceedings? 

Section 33 of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 confers a power on the Attorney-General to apply to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) for a restriction of proceedings order (RPO) restricting an individual who is found to have been a vexatious litigant. 

The effect of an RPO is that an individual is prohibited from starting or continuing proceedings in the employment tribunal or EAT without first obtaining permission from the EAT. An RPO may be for a specified period or remain in force indefinitely, depending on the circumstances. There is a strict test that applies for an RPO to be granted, reflecting the seriousness of the restriction. The EAT must be satisfied that each of the proceedings relied upon was vexatious, and that the claimant’s conduct has been both habitual and persistent, as well as unreasonable – this test is cumulative.  

Although the ET does not have the authority to issue an RPO, individual parties within the civil jurisdiction may apply for a Civil Restraint Order (CRO) in a given set of proceedings. A CRO is governed by the Civil Procedure Rules and permission for a claimant subject to a CRO to proceed with a claim can only be granted by the court. It applies to civil proceedings within the courts and tribunals, meaning that it has a broader application that an RPO. 

CROs are available in three distinct forms, each designed to address different levels of vexatious conduct.  

1. Limited CRO: the recipient is prohibited from making any further applications within the relevant proceedings without first obtaining permission from a judge. It may be granted where a party has previously submitted two or more applications that have been determined to be wholly without merit. 

2. Extended CRO: the recipient is prevented from issuing claims or making applications in any court specified within the order, where such matters are connected to, arise from, or are otherwise related to the proceedings in which the order is made. The individual is required to obtain permission from a judge before commencing any such further action. This order may be granted where the court is satisfied that the party has persistently pursued claims or applications that are wholly without merit. 

3. General CRO: the recipient is unable to issue any claim or make any application in any court without first obtaining the permission of a judge. Such an order may be granted where a party has persistently pursued claims or applications that are wholly without merit. 

What other tools are available? 

Truly vexatious claimants are rare in the context of employment claims and the threshold for obtaining an order against an individual is set deliberately high. There are other tools available to respondents when dealing with potentially vexatious proceedings, which may offer more proportionate and immediate relief. These mechanisms include: 

Strike out: a tribunal may, on its own initiative or on application by a party, strike out all or part of a claim (or response). This can be done on grounds of the claim being scandalous, vexatious or with no reasonable prospects of success. It also applies if the manner in which the proceedings have been conducted (by or on behalf of the claimant or respondent) has been scandalous, unreasonable or vexatious. 

Deposit orders: these may be imposed where a claim or specific allegation appears to have little reasonable prospect of success. The claimant is required to pay a deposit (of up to £1,000) as a condition of proceeding, which can serve as a deterrent against speculative or weak claims. 

Costs awards: although costs are not routinely awarded by the employment tribunals, they may be granted where a party has acted vexatiously, abusively, disruptively, or otherwise unreasonably, or where a claim or response had no reasonable prospect of success.  

In the circumstances where a claim is problematic and potentially vexatious, but the claimant does not yet meet the criteria for a CRO, the employment tribunal may consider these alternative procedural tools to manage the claimant’s conduct during proceedings. This enables respondents to proactively challenge difficult conduct and discourage the individual from adding to over-stretched tribunal resources.