EMPLOYMENTVexatious litigant - habitual and persistent institution of proceedings - Employment Appeal Tribunal entitled to make restriction order though no such proceedings brought in preceding two yearsAttorney-General v Wheen: CA (Nourse, Mummery and Keene LJJ): 7 December 2000Between July 1997 and April 1998 the respondent, without any success, commenced numerous proceedings in employment tribunals and in some of those cases appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal.

In October 1999 the Attorney-General applied to the Employment Appeal Tribunal for a restriction of proceedings order against the respondent under s.33 of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996.

In April 2000 the appeal tribunal, exercising for the first time exercised its statutory powers under the 1996 Act, granted a restriction order.

The respondent appealed.The respondent in person.

Robert Jay QC (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the Attorney-General.Held, dismissing the appeal, that s.33 of the 1996 Act concerned persons who 'habitually and persistently and without any reasonable ground instituted vexatious proceedings'; that before making an order, the Employment Appeal Tribunal had to be satisfied that the conditions in s.33(1) of the Act were satisfied and then go on to consider whether it should exercise its discretion to make an order; and that the appeal tribunal, aware that no current proceedings by the respondent were pending and of the lapse of time since his last application, but finding no indications that the respondent would not institute future proceedings, had been entitled to act as it had in granting the restriction order.