Costs bid fails against former employee who withdrew most claims

When a costs application backfires

This case shows that employers who pursue costs against former employees face a high bar. The former employee had brought multiple claims, most of which were withdrawn at an early hearing. Only a breach of contract claim remained, and she was given permission to apply to amend it. When the amendment was later refused, the employer sought £1,435 in costs, arguing the claim had no prospect of success and the employee had acted unreasonably.

The tribunal disagreed. It found that the employee had a legitimate basis for her claim and that her conduct was not unreasonable. The fact that an earlier judge had allowed her to apply to amend showed the claim was not hopeless. The tribunal also noted that the December 2022 hearing had been effective – several claims were withdrawn and a strike-out application was refused.

What the employer could have done differently

The employer might have avoided this outcome by recognising that costs applications are not a routine way to recover legal fees after a claim is withdrawn. The tribunal emphasised that just because a claim does not succeed does not mean it had no reasonable prospect of success. Employers should carefully assess whether the employee's conduct was truly unreasonable – for example, pursuing a claim they knew was groundless or wasting hearing time – before applying for costs.

Why this matters for similar claims

This decision reinforces the principle that costs orders in employment tribunals are exceptional. Employees who withdraw claims early, cooperate with proceedings, and have a genuine dispute are unlikely to face costs, even if their claim ultimately fails. For employers, the message is clear: a costs application should be based on clear evidence of unreasonable behaviour, not simply on the fact that the claim was unsuccessful.