Delivery driver ordered to pay £8,779 after pursuing unfair dismissal claim with 'no reasonable prospect'
A delivery driver who claimed unfair dismissal after driving through flood water has been ordered to pay £8,779.50 in costs. The tribunal found he acted unreasonably by continuing his claim after receiving a Fire Service report that contradicted his key argument.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #costs-order
- #withdrawal
- #fire-service-report
- #jury-service
- #unreasonable-conduct
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a delivery driver from 1 February 2013 to 7 December 2021.
- On 3 November 2021, the claimant drove a company vehicle through flood water and it became stuck.
- The claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct on 7 December 2021 following a disciplinary hearing.
- The claimant claimed unfair dismissal but withdrew his claim on 6 February 2023.
- The respondent applied for costs, arguing the claimant acted unreasonably in continuing the claim after being provided with a Fire Service report showing the road had not collapsed.
- The tribunal ordered the claimant to pay £8,779.50 in costs.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began working as a delivery driver for the respondent.
-
Road traffic incident
Claimant drove through flood water and the vehicle became stuck.
-
Suspension
Claimant was suspended following the incident.
-
Dismissal
Claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct after a disciplinary hearing.
-
Claim presented
Claimant filed a claim for unfair dismissal.
-
First costs warning letter
Respondent sent a letter with Fire Service report showing road did not collapse, inviting withdrawal by 1 July 2022.
-
Second costs warning letter
Respondent sent a further letter inviting withdrawal before 13 October 2022.
-
Settlement offer by claimant
Claimant offered to withdraw in exchange for £1,000 and other terms.
-
Withdrawal of claim
Claimant withdrew his unfair dismissal claim.
-
Costs application
Respondent applied for costs.
-
Costs hearing
Hearing for costs application; claimant did not attend.
-
Judgment
Tribunal ordered claimant to pay £8,779.50 in costs.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant acted unreasonably in bringing or conducting proceedings, or whether his claim had no reasonable prospect of success, so that a costs order should be made.
The outcome
The tribunal granted the respondent's application for costs and ordered the claimant to pay £8,779.50.
The key reason was that the claimant continued his unfair dismissal claim after receiving a Fire Service report showing the road had not collapsed – directly contradicting his central argument that a road collapse caused the incident. The respondent had sent two warning letters inviting withdrawal, but the claimant only withdrew after a further 8 months, during which costs continued to accrue.
Compensation breakdown:
- Costs ordered: £8,779.50 (inclusive of VAT)
- No other awards were made as the claim was withdrawn.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you receive clear evidence that undermines your claim, consider withdrawing promptly to avoid a costs order.
- Ignoring multiple warnings about costs can lead to a significant financial penalty, even if you eventually withdraw.
- A costs order can be made if the tribunal finds your claim had no reasonable prospect of success from the outset.
- Failing to attend a costs hearing does not prevent the tribunal from making a decision against you.
What this case shows
This case is a stark warning about the risks of pursuing an employment claim after receiving evidence that fundamentally undermines it. The claimant, a delivery driver with 8 years' service, was dismissed for gross misconduct after driving a company vehicle through flood water. He claimed unfair dismissal, arguing that the road had collapsed, causing the vehicle to become stuck.
However, the respondent obtained a Fire Service report showing the road had not collapsed – directly contradicting the claimant's version of events. Despite being sent this report in June 2022 with an invitation to withdraw, the claimant continued his claim for another eight months. The respondent sent a second warning letter in October 2022, but the claimant only withdrew in February 2023, after a settlement offer was rejected.
What the respondent did right
The respondent acted prudently by providing the claimant with the Fire Service report early and issuing clear, written warnings that a costs application would follow if the claim was not withdrawn. This gave the claimant every opportunity to reassess his position. The tribunal noted that the claimant's claim had no reasonable prospect of success once the report was disclosed.
Why this matters
This decision reinforces that tribunals have the power to award costs against claimants who act unreasonably. While costs orders are relatively rare in employment tribunals, they are more likely where a party ignores clear evidence and continues to pursue a hopeless claim. The £8,779.50 order here covered legal costs from May 2022 to the costs hearing in September 2023 – a significant sum for an individual.
For anyone considering an employment claim, the lesson is clear: if new evidence emerges that weakens your case, take legal advice and consider whether it is sensible to proceed. Continuing in the face of overwhelming evidence can be costly.
Similar cases
Former employee ordered to pay costs after threatening to reveal damaging information
A former employee who threatened to reveal damaging information unless his claim was settled has been ordered to pay £750 costs after withdrawing his claim minutes before a hearing.
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.