A litigant who bombarded the Solicitors Regulation Authority and law firms with employment tribunal claims has had his legal activity curbed by the High Court.
Her Honour Judge Emma Kelly said law graduate Zakir Khan was a ‘prolific litigant’ who had brought at least 42 claims in eight years – 12 of these against the SRA and several against law firms. He also attempted to sue the CPS, HM Courts & Tribunals Services and various government departments.
The nature of each claim was similar: Khan applied for jobs and then alleged a failure to make reasonable adjustments during the recruitment process to accommodate disabilities. His disabilities are attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, depression, anxiety, and obsessive compulsive personality disorder. In some cases Khan did not even get as far as making an application for the job and alleged the application process was discriminatory.
In Solicitors Regulation Authority Ltd & Ors v Zakir Khan the judge said Khan’s success rate in the employment tribunal was ‘poor’ and there was no evidence that any of the 42 claims had succeeded before an employment judge. Only two of the claims have yielded any return: two law firms settled claims for what were described as ‘nuisance value payments’ of £700 and £1,000 respectively.
The court heard that in several of the claims, Khan repeatedly made applications to adjourn hearings, usually on medical grounds, which invariably failed.
Five employment claims were dismissed by judges as being totally without merit. Khan did not accept these decisions and blamed his defeats on evidence not being included in hearing bundles or the fact he was not present at hearings.
The SRA and five separate government departments, appearing as claimants in an application for a civil restraint order, told the court there was a high risk that Khan would continue to make these claims if he was not stopped. He retained an apparent ‘utter but misplaced conviction’ that they were all corrupt and they did not accept his promises to cease his pursuit of further claims.
They cited a letter of complaint from Khan to the employment tribunal in 2023 in which he said: ‘Please don’t underestimate my passion and fervency in my question for restitution and goal. I may have, metaphorically, half the brain to stand a chance given my situation health-wise, but I will continue till I have nothing left.’
The judge said she was not persuaded by Khan’s recent more conciliatory position and granted the civil restraint order application, saying the proportionate term was for three years.
‘The defendant presents as someone convinced that he is subject to persecution and discrimination at the hands of the respondents to his ET claims,’ added the judge. ‘He also appears convinced that the legal representatives for the respondents and ET judiciary are corrupt. His beliefs are entirely without objective foundation. However, the defendant’s subjective, if irrational, mindset increases the risk he will engage in further totally without merit litigation.’
