The EAT has barred Mr D'Souza (as in D'Souza v Lambeth) from bringing proceedings in the employment tribunal without obtaining prior leave from the EAT.
Mr D'Souza initially brought seven cases against the London Borough of Lambeth between 1987 and 1989. One of his claims reached the House of Lords in June 2003, in which (in a series of conjoined appeals) the House of Lords held that it is possible for post-termination discrimination to fall within the discrimination statutes (but, on the facts, rejecting Mr D'Souza's appeal).
He then brought a second series of cases - this time eight cases - between 1997 and 2004. The Attorney General argued that this second series of cases rendered Mr D'Souza a vexatious litigant.
In a detailed judgment, the EAT has agreed, and has made a 'restriction of proceedings' order against him. The case affirms and follows the previous 'vexatious litigant' cases of Attorney-General v Wheen  IRLR 461 and Attorney-General v Barker  FLR 759. Like all these cases, it makes sad reading and emphasises the need for multiple, habitual and persistent claims arising out of the same of similar facts and causes of action.