Carpet fitter ordered to pay £12,950 costs after pursuing disability claim with no reasonable prospect of success
A tribunal ordered a former carpet fitter to pay £12,950 in costs after he pursued disability discrimination and unfair dismissal claims that were out of time and based on untruthful evidence. His former solicitors were also ordered to pay £1,600 in wasted costs.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant brought disability discrimination claims but was found not to be disabled under the Equality Act 2010.
- The claimant's unfair dismissal claim was dismissed as it was presented out of time and it was reasonably practicable to present it in time.
- The claimant breached multiple tribunal orders, causing delay and additional costs.
- The claimant gave untruthful evidence about his disability and the date of dismissal.
- The respondent applied for costs against the claimant and a wasted costs order against the claimant's former solicitors.
Timeline
-
Dismissal email sent
The respondent sent an email dismissing the claimant on 15 October 2020.
-
P45 received
The claimant received his P45, which stated the date of termination as 15 October 2020.
-
Hearing postponed
A hearing listed for 26 July 2021 was postponed due to the claimant's non-compliance with orders.
-
Unless order hearing
Employment Judge S Jenkins refused the respondent's strike-out application and issued an unless order.
-
Disability discrimination hearing
Employment Judge C Sharp found the claimant was not disabled and dismissed the discrimination claims.
-
Unfair dismissal hearing
Employment Judge C Sharp dismissed the unfair dismissal claim as out of time.
-
Costs application made
The respondent applied for costs against the claimant and a wasted costs order against Setfords Solicitors.
-
Costs judgment
Employment Judge C Sharp ordered the claimant to pay £12,950 in costs and Setfords to pay £1,600 in wasted costs.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether to make a costs order against the claimant and a wasted costs order against his former solicitors due to unreasonable conduct, pursuing claims with no reasonable prospect of success, and breaching tribunal orders.
The outcome
The tribunal ordered the claimant to pay £12,950 in costs to the respondent, Rema Tip Top Industry UK Ltd, for unreasonable behaviour, pursuing claims with no reasonable prospect of success, and breaching tribunal orders. The tribunal also ordered the claimant's former solicitors, Setfords Solicitors, to pay £1,600 in wasted costs for their improper, unreasonable, or negligent conduct.
- The claimant's disability discrimination claims were dismissed because he was found not to be disabled under the Equality Act 2010.
- The unfair dismissal claim was dismissed as it was presented out of time, and it was reasonably practicable to present it in time.
- The claimant breached multiple tribunal orders, causing delay and additional costs, and gave untruthful evidence about his disability and the date of dismissal.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you bring a claim that has no reasonable prospect of success, you risk being ordered to pay the other side's costs.
- Complying with tribunal orders is essential – breaching them can lead to costs orders against you.
- Giving untruthful evidence can severely damage your case and result in financial penalties.
- Check the time limits for bringing a claim – if you miss them, your claim may be dismissed and you could face costs.
When pursuing a claim goes wrong
This case shows the serious financial consequences that can follow when a tribunal claim is pursued without a realistic prospect of success. The claimant, a former carpet fitter, brought disability discrimination and unfair dismissal claims against his employer, Rema Tip Top Industry UK Ltd. However, the tribunal found that he was not disabled under the Equality Act 2010, and his unfair dismissal claim was presented well out of time – he received his P45 in October 2020 but did not issue proceedings until months later.
What the tribunal found
The tribunal concluded that the claimant had acted unreasonably throughout the proceedings. He breached multiple tribunal orders, causing delays and additional costs for the respondent. More seriously, he gave untruthful evidence about his disability and the date of dismissal. The respondent applied for costs, and the tribunal ordered the claimant to pay £12,950 – the costs reasonably and necessarily incurred due to his conduct.
The role of the solicitors
The tribunal also made a wasted costs order against the claimant's former solicitors, Setfords Solicitors, for £1,600. This was because their conduct – including pursuing claims with no reasonable prospect of success and failing to comply with orders – was considered improper, unreasonable, or negligent. The order was made under Rule 80 of the Employment Tribunal Rules, which allows tribunals to hold paid representatives personally liable for costs they cause.
What this means for similar claims
This case is a stark reminder that employment tribunals have strong powers to penalise unreasonable behaviour. Claimants should think carefully before bringing claims that are weak or out of time, and ensure they comply with all tribunal orders. For employers, it shows that costs orders are available where a claimant acts unreasonably, though they are not automatic. The key lesson is that honesty and compliance with procedural rules are essential – failing to do so can be very expensive.
Similar cases
Process and Technical Manager's out-of-time claim dismissed by tribunal
A tribunal dismissed a claim for unfair dismissal and discrimination after the claimant presented his case one day late and failed to attend hearings or provide any explanation for the delay.
Former employee's claims struck out as out of time and for unreasonable conduct
A former employee's unfair dismissal, whistleblowing and discrimination claims have been struck out after being brought too late, with the tribunal also citing unreasonable conduct. The respondent was awarded £5,000 in costs.
Former ambulance service employee's claim struck out as out of time
A former ambulance service employee had her unfair dismissal and disability discrimination claims struck out after lodging them over three weeks late. She was ordered to pay £4,305.48 in costs.
Warehouse operative not disabled: tribunal rejects PTSD, pain and hip condition claims
A warehouse operative who claimed disability discrimination due to PTSD, abdominal pain and a necrotic hip has had her case dismissed after the tribunal found she was not disabled at the material time.