Costs application against former employee dismissed: tribunal finds no unreasonable conduct
A tribunal has dismissed a company's application for a costs order and a wasted costs order against a former employee and her solicitor, finding that the claim was adequately particularised and that neither party acted unreasonably.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #costs-order
- #wasted-costs-order
- #vexatious-conduct
- #unreasonable-conduct
- #negligence-allegation
Key facts
- The claimant brought claims for constructive unfair dismissal, sex discrimination, harassment, and victimisation.
- The respondent applied for a costs order and a wasted costs order against the claimant and her representative.
- The respondent alleged the claimant failed to properly particularise her constructive unfair dismissal claim.
- The tribunal found the particulars of claim contained sufficient detail for the allegations.
- The tribunal found both representatives contributed to a hostile climate, but the claimant's representative was not negligent.
- The tribunal dismissed both applications for costs and wasted costs.
Timeline
-
Claim issued
The claimant issued a claim for constructive unfair dismissal, direct sex discrimination, harassment related to sex, and victimisation.
-
First preliminary hearing
A preliminary hearing was held before Employment Judge Craft, who directed the claimant to provide Further and Better Particulars.
-
Further and Better Particulars provided
The claimant provided Further and Better Particulars, but the respondent was dissatisfied with the constructive unfair dismissal part.
-
Respondent sent revised draft list of issues
The respondent sent a revised draft list of issues to the claimant's representative, requesting comments by 29 May 2023.
-
Claimant's representative returned draft list of issues
The claimant's representative returned the draft list of issues on the bank holiday, which the respondent claimed introduced new allegations.
-
Respondent made costs applications
The respondent applied for a costs order against the claimant and a wasted costs order against her solicitor.
-
Claimant's representative sent annotated list of issues
The claimant's representative sent an annotated list of issues dated 10 August 2023, which was used at the hearing.
-
Preliminary hearing on costs applications
A preliminary hearing was held before Employment Judge Coll to hear the respondent's costs applications.
-
Judgment issued
Employment Judge Coll issued a judgment dismissing both the costs order and wasted costs order applications.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the former employee or her solicitor had acted vexatiously, disruptively, or unreasonably, or whether the solicitor had acted improperly, unreasonably, or negligently, so as to justify a costs order or wasted costs order.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the respondent's applications for a costs order and a wasted costs order.
Key reasons:
- The former employee's particulars of claim contained sufficient detail for the allegations, and the Further and Better Particulars provided adequate clarity.
- Both representatives contributed to a hostile climate, but the former employee's representative was not negligent or unreasonable.
- The respondent's allegations of erratic pleading were not borne out by the evidence.
No compensation was awarded as the applications were dismissed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Costs orders are rare in employment tribunals and require a clear showing that the other party acted vexatiously, disruptively, or unreasonably.
- A claim that is adequately particularised, even if not perfect, is unlikely to justify a costs order against the claimant.
- Both sides should avoid contributing to a hostile climate, as this can undermine applications for costs based on the other party's conduct.
- Wasted costs orders against a representative require proof of improper, unreasonable, or negligent conduct, which is a high bar.
This case shows that employment tribunals are reluctant to grant costs orders, even when there is disagreement about the clarity of pleadings. The respondent, Spicehaart Group Services Limited, argued that the former employee's constructive unfair dismissal claim was poorly particularised and that her solicitor had acted unreasonably. However, the tribunal found that the claim was sufficiently detailed and that the solicitor's conduct did not meet the high threshold for a wasted costs order.
What the losing side could have done differently
The respondent could have avoided the costs application by engaging more constructively with the claimant's representatives to clarify the issues, rather than escalating to a formal application. The tribunal noted that both sides contributed to a hostile climate, and a more collaborative approach might have resolved the pleading issues without the need for a hearing.
Why this result matters
This decision reinforces the principle that costs orders are not a routine tool for dealing with perceived deficiencies in a claim. Claimants should not be deterred from bringing a case by the threat of a costs application, provided their claim is made in good faith and with sufficient detail. It also highlights that representatives will not be penalised for minor drafting issues or for robustly advancing their client's case.
Similar cases
Costs of £4,490 for bringing a claim with no reasonable prospect of success
A former employee who brought claims of unfair dismissal, disability discrimination and holiday pay arrears has been ordered to pay £4,490 in costs after failing to attend hearings and ignoring a Calderbank offer.
Costs of £15,165 for pursuing baseless claims: a warning on unreasonable conduct
A former employee who brought discrimination and harassment claims with no basis in fact has been ordered to pay £15,165 in costs after the tribunal found her conduct vexatious and unreasonable.
Late redundancy claim dismissed and plumber ordered to pay £6,800 costs
A plumber on a fixed-term contract had his unfair dismissal and wages claims thrown out for being presented too late, and was ordered to pay £6,800 in costs for continuing to pursue a weak case after warnings.
Claim struck out for failing to comply with tribunal orders
A former employee's unfair dismissal claim against Gateshead Health NHS Foundation Trust was struck out after he failed to comply with tribunal orders and did not respond to correspondence. He was ordered to pay £187.50 in costs.