Costs order reconsideration rejected: employer's unreasonable conduct confirmed
The tribunal rejected an employer's bid to overturn a costs order, finding their conduct was unreasonable. A separate claim for extra costs over the reconsideration was also dismissed.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The Tribunal made a Costs Order on 21 April 2023.
- The Respondents applied for reconsideration of that order on 26 April 2023.
- The Tribunal found the Respondents' conduct was inadequate and unreasonable.
- The Claimant made an additional application for costs regarding the reconsideration.
- The Tribunal rejected both the reconsideration and the additional costs application.
Timeline
-
Preliminary Hearing
A preliminary hearing was held to discuss case management issues, including the submission of the ET3 and extension of time.
-
Case Management Order
The Tribunal sent a Case Management Order to the parties, addressing the Respondents' conduct.
-
Claimant's costs application
The Claimant applied for a costs order against the Respondents.
-
Costs Order
The Tribunal made a Costs Order in favor of the Claimant.
-
Respondents' reconsideration application
The Respondents applied for reconsideration of the Costs Order.
-
Respondents' additional information
The Respondents provided additional information in support of their reconsideration application.
-
Claimant's additional costs application
The Claimant made an additional application for costs in relation to the reconsideration.
-
Decision on reconsideration
The Tribunal rejected the Respondents' reconsideration application and the Claimant's additional costs application.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether to reconsider its earlier costs order against the employer, and whether the employer's application for reconsideration amounted to unreasonable conduct justifying an additional costs award.
The outcome
The tribunal rejected the employer's application to reconsider the costs order made on 21 April 2023. The tribunal found that the employer's conduct had been unreasonable, as detailed in the earlier case management order, and the reconsideration application did not raise any new grounds to change that decision.
The tribunal also rejected the former employee's application for additional costs in relation to the reconsideration. While the original conduct was unreasonable, making a reconsideration application and providing supporting information is part of normal litigation procedure and did not itself amount to unreasonable conduct.
No compensation was awarded as this was a costs order decision, not a judgment on the merits of the claim.
Lessons & takeaways
- If a tribunal finds your conduct 'inadequate', it may also be considered 'unreasonable' for costs purposes – the label used is not determinative.
- Making a reconsideration application is not automatically unreasonable, but it must have merit to avoid potential costs consequences.
- Tribunals expect parties to take urgent and meaningful steps to comply with orders; delay or inadequate responses can lead to costs orders.
- Costs orders in employment tribunals are rare but can be made when a party has acted unreasonably in the proceedings.
What this case shows
This case is a reminder that employment tribunals can award costs against a party whose conduct falls short of what is expected. Here, the employer's actions were described as 'inadequate' in a case management order, and the tribunal later made a costs order against them. When the employer asked the tribunal to reconsider that order, arguing their conduct was not unreasonable, the tribunal held that 'inadequate' conduct can amount to unreasonable conduct for the purposes of a costs order.
What the employer could have done differently
The employer could have taken more urgent and meaningful steps to comply with the tribunal's directions. The tribunal noted that additional costs were incurred because of the employer's failure to act promptly. Instead of challenging the costs order on grounds that were largely already addressed, the employer could have focused on complying with the original order and avoiding further costs.
Why this matters
This decision shows that tribunals will not lightly overturn a costs order on reconsideration. The employer's application was rejected because it did not raise any new arguments or errors. However, the tribunal also made clear that not every reconsideration application is unreasonable – it is part of normal litigation. The former employee's attempt to claim further costs for the reconsideration itself was rejected because the employer was entitled to make the application, even if it was unsuccessful.
Similar cases
Costs order confirmed despite procedural error: private hearing heard strike-out application
A tribunal confirmed a costs order against a former employee even though the strike-out application was heard at a private hearing, which was a procedural error. The employee's reconsideration application was refused.
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.
Claims struck out after housing officer failed to serve witness statement
A former housing officer's unfair dismissal and discrimination claims were struck out after she repeatedly failed to serve a witness statement, despite extensions and warnings. She was also ordered to pay £3,870 in costs.
Protected disclosure claim struck out: disclosure made after dismissal cannot save unfair dismissal case
A locum lawyer's claim for automatic unfair dismissal over alleged whistleblowing was struck out because the disclosure came months after his engagement ended. He was also ordered to pay £8,000 in costs for unreasonable conduct.