Mr Christian Mallon

Case Summary

The Attorney General applied for a Restriction of Proceedings Order under section 33 of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 against Dr Christian Mallon, who had filed numerous unsuccessful discrimination claims against employers. The Employment Appeal Tribunal found that Dr Mallon had habitually and persistently instituted vexatious proceedings without reasonable ground, and imposed the order.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal found that Dr Mallon had habitually and persistently instituted vexatious proceedings without reasonable ground, warranting a Restriction of Proceedings Order under section 33 of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996.

• •vexatious proceedings
• •abuse of process

Judgment approved by the court for handing down The Attorney General v Mallon © EAT 2025 Page 1 [2025] EAT 168 Neutral Citation Number: [2025] EAT 168 Case No: EA-2025-000103-LA EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL Rolls Building, Fetter Lane, London EC4A 1NL Date: 13 November 2025 Before : THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE GRIFFITHS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Between: THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Applicant - and - DR CHRISTIAN MALLON Respondent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Bayo Randle (instructed by Government Legal Department) for the Applicant The Respondent appeared in person via MS Teams Hearing date: 28 October 2025 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JUDGMENT Judgment approved by the court for handing down The Attorney General v Mallon © EAT 2025 Page 2 [2025] EAT 168 SUMMARY PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE (1) A Restriction of Proceedings Order (“RPO”) under section 33 of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 was made on the application of the Attorney General against a person who had made countless unsuccessful discrimination claims against potential employers in Employment Tribunals all over the United Kingdom. (2) The resources of the tribunal system are limited, and not to be wasted. The strain on litigants who have to respond to claims is not to be underestimated, and they are entitled to protection from claims which are an abuse of process and which are not based on reasonable grounds. Costs orders, even when made, never fully compensate for the exp…