Inclusive, Safe and Fair: A Balanced Approach to Managing High-Conflict Complainants
- Shiv Martin
- 7 hours ago
- 6 min read
Managing querulous litigants, sometimes referred to as vexatious or high-conflict complainants, is one of the most complex challenges faced by complaints bodies, tribunals, ombudsman offices, and regulatory agencies. These individuals test the limits of legal systems and dispute resolution processes not only through the persistence of their claims but also through the emotional and relational strain they place on staff.
My work as a mediator, conciliator, and trainer has repeatedly demonstrated that effective responses to these complainants require a blend of inclusivity, procedural fairness, and occupational health and safety (WHS) protections. It is no longer sufficient to focus solely on the substance of complaints. To be effective and fair, we must also consider cultural and systemic biases, equip staff with practical skills, and implement organisational safeguards.
Understanding the Dynamics of Querulous Complainants
Querulous complainants are often characterised by repeated grievances, refusal to accept adverse findings, and escalating confrontation with decision-makers. These behaviours impose costs at multiple levels:
Systemic costs: Court and tribunal resources are diverted, delaying legitimate matters (Hall, 2005).
Organisational costs: Agencies experience increased staff turnover, higher rates of burnout, and reputational damage.
Personal costs: Staff face emotional exhaustion, compassion fatigue, and exposure to unreasonable behaviours.
Legal systems have responded with frameworks to identify and restrict vexatious litigants (for example, the measures in England, Wales, and Hong Kong). However, as Herman (2012) has argued, there is evidence that cultural biases influence how individuals are categorised. Litigants from immigrant or marginalised communities are sometimes disproportionately labelled as “vexatious,” raising serious questions about equity and justice.
This highlights a central dilemma: how do we balance efficiency and fairness while avoiding systemic bias?
The Case for Inclusive Practice
An inclusive approach acknowledges that high-conflict complainants often feel misunderstood or excluded from justice processes. While their behaviour may be disruptive, many are driven by a genuine (albeit sometimes distorted) belief that they have been wronged.
Inclusivity does not mean acquiescence. Rather, it involves designing complaints processes that are transparent, accessible, and respectful. Providing clear information, consistent communication, and structured pathways ensures complainants understand the limits of the process while still feeling heard.
From a psychological perspective, this aligns with principles of procedural fairness. Studies show that even when outcomes are unfavourable, people are more likely to accept them if they believe the process was fair, impartial, and respectful. This is especially critical in government and regulatory contexts, where public trust is at stake.
Safeguarding Staff: WHS and Psychosocial Risks
The impact of querulous complainants on staff cannot be overstated. Persistent hostility, aggression, and manipulation constitute psychosocial hazards that fall squarely within WHS obligations. The model Work Health and Safety Regulations (Safe Work Australia, 2022) require employers to identify, assess, and control risks to psychological health in the workplace.
Practical safeguards include:
Specialist training in managing high-conflict behaviours.
Access to employee assistance programs and psychological support.
Structured debriefing and peer supervision.
Policies that define unacceptable behaviour and empower staff to set boundaries.
As a trainer, I emphasise that staff resilience is not an individual trait but an organisational responsibility. Agencies must provide systems that protect staff while enabling them to perform their role with professionalism. Interested in finding more about the training I offer? Head to my Events page to see my upcoming training & webinars.
Case Study: Intake as an Intervention
In my role leading a complaints team, I worked with an applicant who had filed repeated grievances over several years. Each was thoroughly investigated with consistent outcomes in favour of the agency, yet the complaints persisted and escalated in hostility.
Our revised intake process provided a turning point:
Early identification: A structured tool flagged repeated patterns and querulous tendencies.
Clear expectations: We set limits on what the process could achieve and assigned a single contact officer.
Mediation option: Offering a neutral third party gave the complainant space to feel heard.
Documentation: Rigorous record-keeping ensured transparency and accountability.
Staff support: Regular debriefings and counselling access helped staff maintain resilience.
The result was not a complete cessation of complaints, but a significant reduction in both frequency and intensity. Importantly, staff reported feeling more confident and supported. This illustrates that the goal is not elimination of querulous behaviour but containment and mitigation that preserves fairness and wellbeing.
Balancing Efficiency, Justice, and Cultural Awareness: Managing High-Conflict Complainants
Efforts to restrict vexatious litigation cannot be separated from broader questions of justice and equality. Kennedy (2018) highlights Ontario’s Rule 2.1 as an example of a mechanism that balances efficiency with safeguards for legitimate claims. Similarly, Lévy (2014) traces the historical shift from “paranoia querulans” to contemporary categories of vexatious litigation, reminding us that these designations evolve with cultural and legal norms.
This reinforces the need for continuous reflection: Are current practices unintentionally amplifying inequality? Are we protecting access to justice while maintaining judicial efficiency?
The Overlooked Element: Self-Care and Staff Resilience
One of the most overlooked aspects of managing querulous complainants is the toll it takes on those who interact with them daily. Without deliberate strategies, staff are vulnerable to burnout and secondary trauma.
Evidence-informed practices include:
Regular debriefing with supervisors and peers.
Professional boundaries that limit exposure and clarify roles.
Access to specialist support such as counselling or reflective practice groups.
Peer networks that foster collective resilience.
As I emphasise in training, resilience is built collectively. It requires organisational culture, not just individual effort.
Why Expertise in Managing Challenging Interactions Matters Now
The legal and complaints landscape is shifting. Complaints bodies face increasing demand, heightened community expectations, and the added complexity of managing complainants who are both vulnerable and high-conflict.
This is why conflict management expertise is no longer optional. It is essential for:
Protecting access to justice.
Maintaining trust in legal and regulatory systems.
Safeguarding staff from psychosocial risks.
Ensuring fairness in outcomes and processes.
My Managing Challenging Interactions course is designed to address these needs. Grounded in research and enriched by years of practice in mediation, conciliation, and complaints leadership, the program equips staff and managers with the frameworks, skills, and strategies needed to respond inclusively, safely, and fairly.
👉 If your organisation is facing an increase in challenging interactions, now is the time to build staff capability. Explore my Managing Challenging Interactions course to see how evidence-based practice can transform your approach. Friday, October 31st | 9:30 AM - 1:00 PM AEDT | Virtual
Conclusion
Dealing with querulous or high-conflict complainants is never simple. It demands a careful balance between judicial efficiency, cultural fairness, and staff wellbeing. Research provides the frameworks, but lived practice provides the nuance.
By embedding inclusivity, WHS protections, and evidence-informed strategies, organisations can handle high-conflict interactions in ways that preserve fairness for complainants while safeguarding those on the front line.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. What is a high-conflict complainant in the workplace or legal system? A high-conflict or querulous complainant is someone who files repeated grievances, rejects adverse findings, and escalates hostility, often placing strain on staff, systems, and resources.
2. How can organisations manage vexatious or querulous litigants fairly? Use structured intake tools, set clear expectations, maintain rigorous documentation, and offer mediation options. Focus on procedural fairness while safeguarding staff.
3. What role does WHS play in managing high-conflict complainants? Work Health and Safety obligations require organisations to protect staff from psychosocial risks like hostility, aggression, and burnout by providing training, debriefing, and support systems.
4. How can inclusivity improve outcomes with high-conflict complainants? An inclusive approach ensures transparency, respectful communication, and culturally aware practices. This builds trust, even when outcomes are unfavourable, and prevents systemic bias.
Keen to learn more? Download my DIY Guide to Difficult Workplace Conversations Learn effective strategies & practical tools to build strong relationships and resolve disputes in the workplace.
If this post resonated with you, I’d love to stay connected 👉 Subscribe to my blog for more insights on workplace conflict management, conciliation, and leadership coaching. 📅 Book a free confidential consultation: Book Online
📧 Email: contact@shivmartin.com
Shiv Martin is a nationally accredited mediator, practicing solicitor, conciliator, decision-maker, and certified vocational trainer. With extensive experience in complex dispute resolution, stakeholder engagement, and team building across business, community, and governmental sectors, Shiv brings over a decade of unique and diverse expertise in Law, Management, Vocational Education, and Mediation.
Comments