Senior academic ordered to pay £1,000 costs after failing to comply with tribunal order
A highly qualified academic who failed to provide a supplemental impact statement as ordered by the tribunal has been ordered to pay £1,000 in costs. The tribunal found his conduct unreasonable and that it caused a hearing to be postponed.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant failed to provide a supplemental impact statement as ordered by Employment Judge McCluggage.
- The preliminary hearing on 26 May 2023 was postponed due to the claimant's non-compliance.
- The respondent applied for costs limited to counsel's brief fee of £1250 plus VAT.
- The claimant is a highly qualified academic working in a senior position.
- The tribunal found the claimant's conduct unreasonable and ordered him to pay £1000 in costs.
- The claimant's application for reconsideration was refused.
Timeline
-
Case management hearing
Employment Judge McCluggage held a preliminary hearing and ordered the claimant to provide a supplemental impact statement by 26 April 2023. The claimant was present and recorded the hearing.
-
Written order sent to parties
EJ McCluggage's written order was emailed to the parties, including the requirement for a supplemental impact statement.
-
Claimant requests postponement
The claimant wrote to the tribunal requesting new deadlines, citing the delay in receiving the written order. The letter was not copied to the respondent.
-
Claimant repeats postponement request
The claimant again requested rescheduling, stating he had not received written instructions until 10 May. Again, the respondent was not copied.
-
Respondent opposes postponement
The respondent argued the claimant was aware of the deadlines from the hearing and recording. The claimant replied, citing recording issues.
-
Postponement refused
Employment Judge Wedderspoon refused the claimant's request to postpone, noting he was present at the March hearing.
-
Claimant submits medical records
The claimant provided further medical records but did not provide the supplemental impact statement or explain why.
-
Preliminary hearing postponed
The hearing on disability status was postponed due to the claimant's failure to provide the impact statement. The respondent applied for costs.
-
Costs judgment and reconsideration refusal
Employment Judge Meichen ordered the claimant to pay £1000 costs and refused the claimant's application for reconsideration.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's failure to provide a supplemental impact statement as ordered amounted to unreasonable conduct, and if so, what costs should be awarded to the respondent.
The outcome
The tribunal ordered the claimant to pay £1,000 in costs to the respondent.
The key reasons were:
- The claimant failed to comply with an order from Employment Judge McCluggage to provide a supplemental impact statement by 26 April 2023.
- The claimant's non-compliance caused the preliminary hearing on 26 May 2023 to be postponed, wasting the respondent's time and costs.
- The claimant's explanations (delay in receiving written order, recording issues) were not accepted as reasonable excuses.
- The tribunal considered the claimant's ability to pay and reduced the amount from the respondent's claimed £1,250 plus VAT to £1,000.
Compensation breakdown:
- Total costs ordered: £1,000
Lessons & takeaways
- Always comply with tribunal orders by the deadline, or seek an extension in advance with reasons and copy the other side.
- If you cannot meet a deadline, explain why promptly and provide evidence, such as medical records, to support your request.
- Failure to comply can lead to costs orders, even if you are a litigant in person, and the tribunal will consider your ability to pay.
- Recording a hearing does not replace the need to comply with written orders; you are responsible for knowing and meeting deadlines.
When failing to follow a tribunal order costs you money
This case shows that even highly qualified individuals can face financial penalties for not following tribunal directions. The claimant, a senior academic, was pursuing a disability discrimination claim but failed to provide a supplemental impact statement as ordered by the tribunal. Despite being present at the hearing where the order was made, and receiving a written reminder, he did not comply. His excuses—that he needed more time and had recording issues—were not accepted.
What the respondent did right
QAHE Ltd applied for costs promptly, limiting their claim to the counsel's brief fee for the wasted hearing. The tribunal agreed that the claimant's conduct was unreasonable and caused a postponement. The respondent's clear documentation of the order and the claimant's non-compliance strengthened their application.
What the claimant could have done differently
The claimant could have requested an extension before the deadline, copied the respondent, and explained his difficulties. Instead, he waited until after the deadline and made unilateral requests. Providing the statement late or with a reasonable explanation might have avoided the costs order.
Why this matters
Costs orders in employment tribunals are rare but can be made when a party acts unreasonably or breaches orders. This case is a reminder that tribunals expect compliance, and failure can lead to financial consequences, even for litigants in person. The tribunal also considered the claimant's ability to pay, reducing the amount from the claimed £1,250 plus VAT to £1,000.
Similar cases
Costs application refused: a week's delay in disclosure was not unreasonable
A former employee who sought £1,550 in costs after the respondent delayed disclosure by a week has had his application refused. The tribunal found the conduct was not unreasonable.
Claim dismissed after claimant failed to attend hearing: costs awarded for unreasonable conduct
An unfair dismissal claim was dismissed after the claimant failed to attend the final hearing and a preliminary hearing. The tribunal also ordered the claimant to pay £3,460.80 in costs for unreasonable conduct.
Disability discrimination claim struck out for failing to follow tribunal orders
A former employee's disability discrimination claim against Sodexo Limited was struck out after she repeatedly failed to provide ordered medical information. The tribunal found no reasonable excuse for the non-compliance.
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.