A serial litigant accused of pursuing unrealistic job applications to then bring discrimination claims has been allowed to pursue his latest action.

The respondent in Mallon v West Midlands Growth Company had submitted to the Midlands West employment tribunal that claimant Christian Mallon followed a ‘pattern’ of going for roles for which he had no relevant experience and then taking legal action when he was unsuccessful.

Mallon, who has autism, ADHD and dyspraxia, acknowledged that he had brought multiple claims but said these were based on genuine grievances and he was trying to secure work.

Employment judge Kight refused the respondent’s application to strike out the claim and a separate application for deposit orders of £1,000 for each of Mallon’s claims.

The tribunal heard that Mallon had claimed for an alleged failure to make reasonable adjustments based on a lack of an auxiliary aid, discrimination arising from disability and victimisation.

Mallon had applied for a role with the respondent, a promotion and marketing organisation for the West Midlands, through a generic CV and believed that his background, skills and experience were highly relevant to the position. He gave examples of business development activities from his past and argued his conditions prevented him from tailoring his CV.

He denied being vexatious and trying to exploit the system but instead described himself as ‘an experienced and determined litigant who will not be deterred from seeking justice’.

He resisted paying deposit orders because he is of limited means and claimed to have been told by the Citizens Advice Bureau never to pay one.

The respondent said Mallon had known he did not have much chance of getting the job and that he had brought ‘many, many claims which follow the same pattern; that he is unrealistic in applying for roles for which he has no relevant experience, without producing a bespoke CV or any other documentation and then pursues equally non[1]bespoke claims in respect of such applications when he is unsuccessful’.

It was claimed that Mallon used AI to create documents and make job applications and this was another sign of him being ‘vexatious’. Lawyers for the respondent described Mallon’s claim as ‘nothing more than a template’ with no explanation or detail of what it was that he was complaining about. It was submitted that in previous claims, Mallon had been ‘less than honest’ about his means.

The judge acknowledged that Mallon had brought many tribunal claims relating to unsuccessful job applications. These cases had similarities or patterns in the way Mallon applied for roles and over time adapted his approach. But while that background was relevant, the tribunal now had to consider the facts of these applications.

‘The tribunal does not accept that the claimant’s claims history alone demonstrates that his presentation of this claim is vexatious,’ said the judge.

She accepted that Mallon’s recent job history did not appear to show that his experience was relevant to this role. But it could not be determined at this stage in the proceedings, without the opportunity to hear the oral evidence and for it to be challenged, that the claim for failure to make reasonable adjustments was either vexatious or had little prospect of success.

The respondent’s applications were dismissed and the claim continues.