The claimant brought claims for discrimination after he saw an online advert for female takeaway staff. The claimant did not apply for the position advertised but instead claimed he was deterred from doing so because of the discriminatory content of the advertisement and so sought compensation for injury to feelings and loss of earnings. Before the ET, the respondent revealed that the claimant had made several similar claims against different employers in the past. The ET dismissed the claims as the motivation was purely for financial gain. They also allowed an application for a PTO in favour of the respondents and refused one for the claimant, as they considered the bar for vexatious litigation had been met.

In this judgment Eady J sets out as an illustration of the claimant's conduct in some detail before dismissing the appeals. At [76] she goes further saying the conduct of the proceedings has been an abuse of process of the ET and the EAT and refers her ruling to the Registrar "for consideration as to whether there might be grounds for the claimant’s litigation conduct to be considered by the Lord Advocate."