School business manager ordered to pay costs after withdrawing whistleblowing claim against head teacher
A school business manager who pursued a whistleblowing claim against an interim head teacher was ordered to pay £4,800 in costs after the tribunal found her conduct unreasonable. The school later settled the redundancy claim for £12,443.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as School Business Manager from 4 January 2000 to 10 October 2018.
- She was dismissed by reason of redundancy after a restructuring of the school office.
- The claimant made protected disclosures on 29 June 2018 and 9 July 2019.
- The claim against the third respondent (Mrs Barnard) was withdrawn on 26 September 2020.
- The third respondent was awarded costs of £4,800 for the claimant's unreasonable conduct.
- The first respondent agreed to pay the claimant £12,443 by consent.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began employment as School Business Manager at St Mary's Roman Catholic Primary School.
-
Interim Deputy Head appointed
Mrs Barnard appointed as Interim Deputy Head Teacher.
-
Interim Head Teacher
Mrs Barnard became full-time Interim Head Teacher.
-
Financial audit
Wiltshire Council conducted a financial audit of the school.
-
Claimant's sickness absence began
Claimant started a period of sickness absence.
-
At risk of redundancy
Claimant informed she was at risk of redundancy due to restructuring.
-
Redundancy notice
Claimant notified of selection for redundancy and given notice expiring 10 October 2018.
-
Appeal rejected
Claimant's appeal against redundancy was heard and rejected.
-
Dismissal
Claimant's employment terminated by reason of redundancy.
-
First claim presented
Claimant brought claims of disability discrimination, unfair dismissal, and whistleblowing detriment against the school and Wiltshire Council.
-
Second claim presented
Claimant presented a claim against Mrs Barnard and Mrs Wilkie.
-
Withdrawal of claim against third respondent
Claimant withdrew claims against Mrs Barnard.
-
Costs judgment
Employment Judge Midgley ordered claimant to pay £4,800 costs to Mrs Barnard.
-
Consent order
First respondent agreed to pay claimant £12,443; no order as to costs.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant acted unreasonably in continuing a claim against a personal respondent (the interim head teacher) for whistleblowing detriment, and whether a costs order should be made.
The outcome
The tribunal ordered the claimant to pay £4,800 in costs to the third respondent (Mrs Barnard) for unreasonably pursuing a whistleblowing claim against her. The claim against Mrs Barnard was withdrawn on 26 September 2020.
The first respondent (the school) agreed to pay the claimant £12,443 by consent to settle the remaining claims, with no order as to costs.
- Costs awarded to third respondent: £4,800
- Settlement with first respondent: £12,443
Lessons & takeaways
- Think carefully before naming individuals as personal respondents in a claim — the tribunal can order you to pay their legal costs if it finds your conduct unreasonable.
- Withdrawing a claim early can still lead to a costs order if the other party has already incurred significant legal costs due to your actions.
- Settlement with one respondent does not protect you from a costs order in favour of another respondent if the tribunal finds you acted unreasonably against them.
- Consider the strength of your case against each respondent separately — a weak claim against one person can be costly even if you have a strong case against another.
This case shows the risks of pursuing weak claims against individual respondents in employment tribunals. The claimant, a school business manager with 18 years' service, was made redundant after a restructuring. She brought claims against multiple parties, including the interim head teacher who had been involved in the redundancy process.
Why the costs order was made
The tribunal found that the claimant had acted unreasonably in continuing her whistleblowing claim against the interim head teacher. The claim was eventually withdrawn, but only after the respondent had incurred significant legal costs. The tribunal noted that the claimant's conduct in pursuing this claim fell outside the range of reasonable behaviour, leading to a costs order of £4,800.
What the losing side could have done differently
The claimant could have avoided the costs order by carefully assessing the merits of her claim against each respondent early on. If the evidence did not support a whistleblowing claim against the individual, withdrawing it sooner would have prevented the accumulation of legal costs. Seeking legal advice on the strength of each claim before issuing proceedings is crucial.
Why this matters for similar claims
This case serves as a reminder that employment tribunals have the power to award costs against claimants who act unreasonably. While costs orders are still relatively rare, they are more likely when claims are pursued against individuals personally, especially if the evidence is weak. Claimants should consider the potential financial consequences of naming multiple respondents and should be prepared to withdraw claims that lack merit.
Similar cases
Deputy principal dismissed for redundancy after consultation meeting lacked clear purpose
A deputy principal with 14 years' service was unfairly dismissed after the trust failed to tell her the purpose of a redundancy consultation meeting. The tribunal awarded no compensation, however, finding she would have been dismissed anyway.
Voluntary redundancy: stage crew member with dyslexia wins unfair dismissal claim
A long-serving stage crew member with dyslexia has won his unfair dismissal claim against Welsh National Opera after the tribunal found the employer failed to discuss reasonable adjustments during a redundancy process. All other claims, including age discrimination and protected disclosure complaints, were dismissed.
CEO made redundant after protected disclosures: procedural unfairness in rejecting reduced-hours alternative
A CEO with 7 years' service was unfairly dismissed when his employer rejected his proposed reduced-hours alternative without proper consideration. The tribunal found the redundancy process procedurally flawed but applied a 75% Polkey deduction.
Former employee's claims dismissed after failing to attend final hearing
An employment tribunal dismissed all remaining claims of a former employee who did not attend the final hearing and failed to comply with court orders, ending a case that had already lost several claims due to non-compliance.