In the case of Ramos v Lady Coco Limited T/A Shamela’s Fresh Hot and Cold Food the claimant brought claims for discrimination after he saw an online advert for female takeaway staff. The claimant did not apply for the position advertised but instead claimed he was deterred from doing so because of the discriminatory content of the advertisement and so sought compensation for injury to feelings and loss of earnings.

Before the ET, the respondent revealed that the claimant had made several similar claims against different employers in the past. The ET dismissed the claims as the motivation was purely for financial gain. They also allowed an application for a Preparation Time Order in favour of the respondents and refused one for the claimant, as they considered the bar for vexatious litigation had been met.

Upon an application made under rule 3(10) EAT Rules 1993, the appellant’s proposed appeals against the decisions of the Employment Tribunal – (1) dismissing his claim of sex discrimination on the merits; and (2) to make a Preparation Time Order in favour of the respondent – were dismissed as raising no arguable question of law; it being held that the appeals were totally without merit.

The appellant was also found to have conducted the proceedings before the EAT and ET in a vexatious manner and the ruling on these appeals will be referred to the Registrar for consideration as to whether there might be grounds for the claimant’s litigation conduct to be considered by the Lord Advocate.