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.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #costs-order
- #vexatious-conduct
- #unreasonable-conduct
- #postponement
- #no-reasonable-prospects
- #failure-to-provide-means
Key facts
- The claimant brought claims of unfair dismissal, direct sex discrimination, direct race discrimination and sexual harassment against her former employer.
- The Tribunal found that the discrimination and harassment claims had no basis in fact or law and were pursued unreasonably.
- The claimant made multiple late postponement applications without sufficient medical evidence.
- The claimant failed to comply with Tribunal orders to provide information on her means.
- The respondent's costs application succeeded and the claimant was ordered to pay £15,165.
Timeline
-
Liability hearing begins
The Tribunal heard the claimant's claims in person over three days, then adjourned due to respondent representative's ill health.
-
Liability hearing resumes
The hearing continued for five days.
-
Oral decision delivered
The Tribunal gave an oral decision on the liability claims.
-
Written judgment sent
The written judgment on liability was sent to the parties.
-
Costs application made
The respondent applied for costs under rule 76(1)(a) and (b).
-
Written reasons sent
The Tribunal sent written reasons for the liability decision.
-
Costs hearing listed
The Tribunal listed the costs hearing for 11 November 2022 and ordered the claimant to provide means information by 30 September 2022.
-
Claimant applies for postponement
The claimant applied to postpone the costs hearing due to ill health and pending EAT appeal.
-
Costs hearing postponed
The Tribunal postponed the hearing due to claimant's ill health, but ordered further directions.
-
Costs hearing proceeds
The Tribunal heard the costs application; the claimant attended by telephone but was abusive and disconnected. The Tribunal refused her postponement application.
-
Costs judgment issued
The Tribunal ordered the claimant to pay £15,165 in costs.
The legal issue
Whether the claimant acted vexatiously, abusively, disruptively or unreasonably in bringing or conducting the proceedings, and whether her claims had no reasonable prospect of success, justifying a costs order.
The outcome
The tribunal granted the respondent's costs application and ordered the claimant to pay £15,165.
- The discrimination and harassment claims were found to have no basis in fact or law and were pursued unreasonably.
- The claimant made multiple late postponement applications without sufficient medical evidence.
- She failed to comply with tribunal orders to provide information on her means.
- The costs order was made under rule 76(1)(a) and (b) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013.
Lessons & takeaways
- Bringing a claim with no reasonable prospect of success can lead to a costs order against you, especially if you pursue it unreasonably.
- Failing to provide medical evidence for postponement requests or ignoring tribunal directions risks adverse costs consequences.
- Employment tribunals can order costs of over £15,000 if a party acts vexatiously or abusively, even if they are a litigant in person.
- If you are ordered to provide information about your financial means, you must comply or risk the tribunal making a costs order without that information.
When tribunal claims backfire: costs for unreasonable conduct
This case shows the serious financial risks of pursuing weak claims without proper evidence or cooperation. The former employee brought claims of unfair dismissal, sex discrimination, race discrimination and sexual harassment against G4S Secure Solutions. After a full hearing, the tribunal found the discrimination and harassment claims had no basis in fact or law. The respondent then applied for costs, arguing the claims were pursued unreasonably.
What went wrong for the claimant
The tribunal identified several problems. The claimant made multiple late postponement requests without adequate medical evidence, despite being given opportunities to provide it. She also failed to comply with a clear order to provide a schedule of her income and outgoings, which meant the tribunal could not assess her ability to pay. At one hearing, she attended by telephone but was abusive and disconnected. The tribunal found her conduct vexatious and unreasonable.
Why this matters for similar claims
Employment tribunals have the power to award costs against a party who acts unreasonably or brings a claim with no reasonable prospects. This case is a reminder that litigants in person are not immune – the tribunal will look at the substance of the claim and the conduct of the proceedings. If you are considering a claim, it is vital to have a realistic assessment of its merits and to comply with all tribunal orders. Failing to do so can result in a significant costs order, as happened here.
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 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.
Whistleblowing claim dismissed: tribunal orders £2,000 costs for pursuing case with no prospects
A former employee's claim for automatic unfair dismissal based on alleged protected disclosures was dismissed, and she was ordered to pay £2,000 in costs for pursuing a case with no reasonable prospects.
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.