Costs of £2,111.90 awarded after former employee pursued unfair dismissal claim with no reasonable prospects
A former employee who pursued an unfair dismissal claim that had no reasonable prospects of success has been ordered to pay £2,111.90 in costs after ignoring a without prejudice offer and failing to attend the costs hearing.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #costs
- #no-reasonable-prospects
- #failure-to-attend
- #failure-to-disclose-means
Key facts
- The claimant brought an unfair dismissal claim after being dismissed for misconduct related to social media posts.
- The tribunal found the dismissal was fair and dismissed the claim on 10 February 2022.
- The respondent made a without prejudice save as to costs offer on 12 February 2021, which the claimant rejected.
- The claimant failed to attend the costs hearing and did not comply with an order to disclose his means.
- The tribunal awarded costs of £2,111.90 to the respondent.
Timeline
-
Dismissal
The claimant was dismissed by the respondent for misconduct related to social media posts.
-
Claim presented
The claimant presented a claim for unfair dismissal to the tribunal.
-
Without prejudice offer
The respondent sent a without prejudice save as to costs letter offering to waive costs if the claimant withdrew his claim.
-
Claimant confirms intention to proceed
The claimant indicated he had received legal advice and would pursue his claim.
-
Judgment on unfair dismissal
The tribunal found the claimant was not unfairly dismissed and dismissed his claim.
-
Costs application
The respondent applied for costs.
-
Costs hearing listed
The matter was listed for a costs hearing on 6 January 2023.
-
Order to disclose means
The tribunal ordered the claimant to provide details of his financial means by 30 December 2022.
-
Costs hearing
The claimant did not attend; the tribunal awarded costs of £2,111.90 to the respondent.
The legal issue
Whether the respondent should be awarded costs because the claimant's unfair dismissal claim had no reasonable prospects of success and the claimant acted unreasonably in pursuing it, including by rejecting a without prejudice save as to costs offer and failing to attend the costs hearing.
The outcome
The tribunal granted the respondent's application for costs. The claimant had been dismissed for misconduct related to social media posts, and the tribunal had already found the dismissal fair in a judgment sent on 10 February 2022. The respondent had sent a without prejudice save as to costs letter on 12 February 2021, offering to waive costs if the claimant withdrew, but the claimant rejected this and continued with the claim. The claimant also failed to attend the costs hearing and did not comply with an order to disclose his financial means.
Compensation breakdown:
- Total costs awarded: £2,111.90 (comprising 54.68 hours at £42 per hour, excluding the hearing time)
Lessons & takeaways
- If you receive a without prejudice save as to costs offer, consider it carefully — rejecting it and losing can lead to a costs order against you.
- Claims with no reasonable prospects of success can result in costs being awarded, especially if you continue after being warned.
- Always comply with tribunal orders to disclose your means in a costs hearing — failure to do so can harm your case and lead to a higher award.
- Attending all hearings is crucial; non-attendance can result in a costs order being made in your absence.
A costly lesson in pursuing a weak claim
This case shows the financial risks of pursuing an unfair dismissal claim that has little chance of success. The former employee was dismissed for misconduct related to social media posts, and the tribunal had already ruled the dismissal fair. Despite this, the employee continued with the claim after receiving a without prejudice save as to costs letter from the employer, Blanc Aero Industries, which offered to waive costs if the claim was withdrawn.
What the employer did right
Blanc Aero Industries acted strategically by sending a clear warning about costs early in the process. The without prejudice save as to costs letter put the employee on notice that if he pursued the claim and lost, the employer would seek costs. When the employee ignored this and proceeded, the employer made a timely costs application. The employer also sought and obtained a tribunal order for the employee to disclose his means, which the employee failed to comply with.
Why the result matters
Employment tribunals have the power to award costs where a claim has no reasonable prospects of success or a party has acted unreasonably. This case reinforces that rejecting a reasonable settlement offer and continuing with a weak claim can lead to a significant costs bill. The employee's failure to attend the costs hearing or provide financial information only made matters worse. For anyone considering bringing a claim, it's essential to assess the strength of your case realistically and take any settlement offers seriously.
Similar cases
Claims struck out after employee failed to comply with tribunal orders
A former employee's claims for constructive unfair dismissal, disability discrimination, and age discrimination have been struck out after repeated failures to comply with tribunal orders and participate in hearings.
Claims struck out after former employee fails to attend hearing or comply with orders
A former employee's unfair dismissal and disability discrimination claims have been struck out after he failed to attend a preliminary hearing and did not comply with tribunal orders to provide evidence.
COVID test grievance claim struck out as out of time and lacking merit
A former employee who claimed he was victimised for leaving work to take a COVID-19 test had his case struck out for being out of time and having no reasonable prospect of success. He was also ordered to pay £50,186.50 in costs.
Former employee's claim struck out after failing to comply with tribunal orders
A former employee's unfair dismissal claim against Navaratna South Indian Restaurant Ltd. was struck out after she failed to attend a hearing and did not comply with case management orders. No compensation was awarded.