The Claimant suffers from dyspraxia, autism, and ADHD. He also suffers from Crohn’s disease and some other conditions. The Claimant has made numerous job applications and then brought ET claims alleging discrimination. The number of claims is estimated to be around 60 or 70 between 2017 and 2025. Almost all his claims were unsuccessful and most were either withdrawn by him, dismissed on the merits, brought out of time and therefore dismissed or required a deposit to be paid by him. In a number of cases, his conduct had been found to justify the making of a costs award against him, because of specifically identified unreasonable if not vexatious conduct. The AG applied to have a RPO against him to prevent wasting Tribunal time and resources and also to protect Respondents from claims which were an abuse of process and which were not based on reasonable grounds. The Claimant resisted the making of an RPO, saying that instead he would put in place a voluntary filter mechanism of his own devising, which should be in place for 2 to 5 years, or whatever the court might decide. He also said that the imposition of an RPO would deny him the right to access to justice.

The EAT made an indefinite RPO against the Claimant. The imposition of an RPO was, on the facts of this case, a proportionate means of protecting the Employment Tribunal system and potential Respondents from abuse in the form of vexatious claims and applications by the Claimant. An RPO against the Claimant was necessary in the interests of justice. Since it is a filter and not a bar, it does not reduce the Claimant’s access to justice; certainly not to the extent that the very essence of the access right is impaired. Any claim that has merit will be allowed through the filter. Any claim that is an abuse of process, or does not have reasonable grounds, does not deserve to go any further. The ability to issue such claims, and to have them reviewed under the RPO, is itself a means of access to justice.