Home / The rise of litigants in person, the influence of AI, and the challenge of vexatious claims
27th March 2026
Lauren Ogden, Associate
Employment Tribunals are seeing a continued increase in litigants in person (individuals pursuing claims without legal representation). Economic pressures, reduced access to legal funding, and the availability of online guidance all contribute to this pattern. At the same time, the growing use of AI tools is reshaping how individuals prepare and submit claims, making self‑representation appear more achievable.
AI now helps claimants draft ET1 forms, structure legal arguments, and produce lengthy submissions. While this can improve accessibility, it also brings problems: AI‑generated documents may include errors, misunderstood legal tests, or excessively long pleadings that complicate early case management. The ease of producing large volumes of content can also fuel serial litigation, especially from individuals who repeatedly submit claims after unsuccessful job applications.
A small number of litigants in person fall into the category of vexatious litigants, whose persistent, meritless claims place a heavy burden on employers and the tribunal system. Recent case law illustrates growing judicial concern.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal’s recent decision in Attorney General v Ms Sandra Messi [2026] EAT 34 is a recent example. The EAT found that Ms Messi had issued over 50 Employment Tribunal claims since 2017, with none succeeding, and many struck out or dismissed following non‑attendance. She repeatedly failed to comply with directions, advanced unsubstantiated allegations, and made numerous defective applications for interim relief. The tribunal concluded that she had habitually and persistently brought vexatious proceedings, granting a restriction of proceedings order under section 33 of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996. This means that she can no longer pursue a claim in the Employment Tribunal without permission.
Although the judgment does not explicitly address AI use, the broader trend suggests that AI‑enabled drafting may make it easier for serial claimants to generate repeated or legally incoherent claims. For employers, this means increased administrative burdens, more complex pleadings, and a greater need to use early case management tools such as strike‑outs and deposit orders.
As AI becomes further integrated into how individuals prepare tribunal claims, both employers and the tribunal system will need to adapt. While AI can empower genuine claimants, it can also amplify problematic litigation behaviours making judicial controls like the one imposed in Messi increasingly important.
The surge in unrepresented claimants and the growing complexity of AI‑generated pleadings is also driving a significant increase in legal costs for employers. Even where claims ultimately lack merit, employers often incur substantial fees simply to review, respond to, and manage these proceedings. Serial claimants may submit lengthy or incoherent pleadings, or make repeated defective applications, all of which require time‑consuming responses and legal analysis.
For employers and HR teams, the rise of litigants in person and the growing use of AI means it is more important than ever to adopt early, proactive case‑management strategies. This includes promptly reviewing ET1s for signs of incoherent or repetitious AI‑generated pleadings, preparing clear and well‑structured ET3 responses, and seeking early directions, deposit orders, or strike‑out applications where claims show no reasonable prospects of success, consistent with the approach emphasised by the courts in Attorney General v Messi. Employers should also ensure recruitment and HR processes are well‑documented as vexatious litigants often target organisations with multiple applications and broad allegations for the purposes of bringing a claim.
However, this is also a reminder that AI is making tribunal proceedings cheaper and more accessible for litigants in person and whilst they might be difficult to deal with throughout the process, it does not mean they will not be successful in their claims. Employers should be more cautious than ever about following correct policies and procedures, particularly given the additional rights being given to employees under the Employment Rights Act.