Attorney General Secures Indefinite Tribunal Claim Restriction Against Dr Christian Mallon
An Employment Appeal Tribunal has imposed an indefinite Restriction of Proceedings Order against Dr Christian Mallon, limiting his ability to bring further claims without permission.
• public
Attorney General Wins Restriction Order
The Attorney General has successfully secured an indefinite Restriction of Proceedings Order (RPO) against Dr Christian Mallon, a litigant who has brought a multitude of unsuccessful discrimination claims against potential employers. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) made the order under Section 33 of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996.
Grounds for the Restriction
The EAT found that Dr Mallon had habitually and persistently instituted vexatious proceedings without reasonable grounds. Mr Justice Griffiths emphasised that the tribunal system's resources are limited and should not be wasted on claims that are an abuse of process. He noted the strain on respondents, who are entitled to protection from baseless claims.
The Impact of Vexatious Claims
The tribunal recognised that costs orders rarely compensate for the full expense of litigation, including management time and the emotional toll on witnesses. A groundless allegation can be profoundly distressing for the accused, even more so than a claim with some basis in law and fact.
Proportionality and Access to Justice
The EAT concluded that an RPO acts as a filter, not a bar, ensuring access to justice is not unduly impaired. Claims with merit will be allowed to proceed, while those that are an abuse of process will not. The ability to review claims under the RPO is itself a means of access to justice, according to the tribunal.
Dr Mallon's History of Claims
Dr Mallon, who holds a PhD in Chemical Engineering and an Executive MBA, has brought numerous Employment Tribunal claims alleging discrimination after making many job applications. While he argued that his claims were made in good faith to secure fair access to work and reasonable adjustments, the tribunal found a pattern of vexatious conduct.
Examples of Unreasonable Conduct
The EAT cited several cases where Dr Mallon's claims were dismissed, struck out, or resulted in costs orders against him. In one instance, Mallon v Jonathan Lee Recruitment Ltd, he was ordered to pay £3,995 in costs after refusing to disclose the nature of his disability when requesting reasonable adjustments. In another case, Mallon v Ginger Recruitment Services Ltd, he was ordered to pay £2,000 plus VAT due to his unreasonable conduct in bringing a claim for a role he clearly lacked the experience for.
The Tribunal's Decision
Mr Justice Griffiths stated that Dr Mallon had not taken on board the lessons of his past experiences or the warnings from various Employment Tribunals. The EAT found no evidence to suggest that Dr Mallon would change his approach without the imposition of an RPO. The order was deemed a proportionate means of protecting the Employment Tribunal system and potential respondents from abuse.
Indefinite Restriction
The RPO will remain in effect indefinitely. The tribunal reasoned that Dr Mallon's constant stream of job applications and subsequent claims showed no sign of abating, making an indefinite order necessary to prevent further vexatious proceedings.
Read the entire judgement here: The Attorney General v Mr Christian Mallon [2025] EAT 168
