Solicitors Regulation Authority Ltd & Ors v Zakir Khan

The court considered an application by regulatory and government respondents for a civil restraint order to restrain the defendant from issuing or presenting further Employment Tribunal claims or Employment Appeal Tribunal appeals relating to job applications. The court applied the established three-stage test for civil restraint orders (threshold of persistence in issuing claims or applications which are totally without merit; an objective assessment of the risk of further abuse if unrestrained; and the least restrictive proportionate order).

The judge found multiple contemporaneous Employment Tribunal decisions had expressly held the defendant's claims to be "totally without merit" and identified additional strikes/outcomes demonstrating abuse and repetition. The defendant's separate application to strike out the CRO claim was dismissed and his miscellaneous application challenging ET/EAT decisions and seeking damages was rejected as procedurally and substantively defective and recorded as totally without merit.

Applying the principles in CPR PD 3C by analogy to tribunal proceedings, the court granted an extended civil restraint order (ECRO), limited to future ET claims or EAT appeals concerning job applications (whether or not an application was actually made), for a period of three years; and dismissed the defendant's applications as totally without merit.

The claimants (the Solicitors Regulation Authority and various government departments) sought a civil restraint order to prevent the defendant, a prolific litigant, from issuing or presenting further claims in the Employment Tribunal or appeals in the Employment Appeal Tribunal that relate to job application processes. The defendant had issued numerous ET claims since 2017 (the claimants identified 42 ET claim numbers), many grouped for case management; a number had been struck out and five ET decisions expressly recorded the claims as totally without merit.

The defendant relied on allegations under the Equality Act 2010 (sections 20, 21 and 39) claiming failures to make reasonable adjustments across multiple recruitment processes, asserting various disabilities and making a recurring and broad list of alleged reasonable adjustments. Many of his ET claims were struck out under rule 37(1) ET Rules 2013 as having no reasonable prospect of success and some were subject to deposit orders under rule 39(1).

The issues for the High Court were (i) whether the threshold for a civil restraint order was met (persistence in issuing totally without merit claims/applications), (ii) whether there was an objective risk of further abuse if unrestrained, and (iii) what, if any, order was just and proportionate. The court reviewed relevant authorities on strike out and civil restraint orders and confirmed the High Court may make orders to protect tribunal processes, applying CPR PD 3C by analogy.

The judge concluded that at least five ET decisions had expressly certified claims as totally without merit and that an additional claim and a request for reconsideration were also bound to fail. The defendant's voluminous correspondence, repeated threats to continue litigating, expressed obsession with obtaining redress, and recent conduct in these proceedings demonstrated a significant risk of further totally without merit litigation. The defendant's oral assurances that he would not issue further claims were not sufficiently reliable, in particular given his ongoing pursuit of extant claims, the stay of many claims, and evidence of workplace instability.

Accordingly, the court exercised its discretion to make an extended civil restraint order limited to new ET claims or EAT appeals concerning any job application made or asserted to have been made by the defendant, or relating to any job application process, for three years. The defendant's separate application (to strike out the claim and for various declarations and damages) was dismissed as totally without merit. The court recorded that those aspects of the defendant's application were bound to fail and refused to entertain the procedural attempt to overturn ET/EAT decisions in this forum.

This was a first-instance decision. The court allowed the claimants' application in substance by making an extended civil restraint order confined to Employment Tribunal claims and Employment Appeal Tribunal appeals concerning job applications (whether actually made or asserted) for a period of three years, on the basis that the defendant had persistently issued claims or applications which were totally without merit and posed a significant risk of further abuse if unrestrained. The defendant's application to strike out the claim and his miscellaneous relief seeking to overturn ET/EAT decisions and obtain damages was dismissed as procedurally defective and totally without merit.