Costs refused against unrepresented claimant whose claim was struck out
A tribunal has refused a costs application by First Rail Holdings Limited against a former employee whose unfair dismissal claim was struck out, finding his genuine belief in the claim meant he did not act vexatiously.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #costs-application
- #no-reasonable-prospect
- #unrepresented-claimant
- #genuine-belief
- #preliminary-hearing
Key facts
- The claimant's unfair dismissal claim was struck out for having no reasonable prospect of success.
- The respondent applied for costs under Rule 76(1), arguing the claim was vexatious and unreasonable.
- The claimant believed his claim had merit and did not understand the legal issues.
- The respondent had warned the claimant about costs from the outset.
- The tribunal found the claimant's belief genuine and that he did not act vexatiously.
Timeline
-
Preliminary Hearing
The claimant's claim was struck out under Rule 37(1)(a) for having no reasonable prospect of success.
-
Costs application
The respondent applied for costs, arguing the claim was misconceived and vexatious.
-
Claimant's response
The claimant responded, asserting genuine belief in his claim and lack of understanding of legal processes.
-
Costs hearing
The tribunal heard submissions from both parties on the costs application.
-
Judgment
Employment Judge Langridge refused the respondent's costs application.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether to award costs against a claimant whose claim was struck out for having no reasonable prospect of success, on the grounds that bringing the claim and producing multiple versions of documents was vexatious or unreasonable.
The outcome
The tribunal refused the respondent's application for costs.
The key reason was that the claimant, who was unrepresented, genuinely believed his claim had merit and did not understand the legal issues or tribunal processes. While his claim had no reasonable prospect of success, he did not act vexatiously or unreasonably in bringing or conducting it.
No compensation was awarded as the claim was struck out and costs were refused.
Lessons & takeaways
- Unrepresented claimants who genuinely believe in their case are less likely to face costs orders, even if their claim is struck out.
- A costs warning from the other side does not automatically mean costs will be awarded if the claimant acts in good faith.
- Tribunals are reluctant to penalise litigants in person for failing to understand legal issues or procedural rules.
- Producing multiple versions of documents may not be considered unreasonable if the claimant is trying to comply with tribunal orders.
When a claim fails but costs don't follow
This case shows that even when an employment tribunal claim is struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success, the claimant may not have to pay the other side's legal costs. The key factor is the claimant's state of mind: did they genuinely believe their claim had merit, or were they acting vexatiously?
The former employee brought an unfair dismissal claim against First Rail Holdings Limited after a very short period of employment. The claim was struck out at a preliminary hearing because it had no reasonable prospect of success. The respondent then applied for costs of £4,260, arguing that the claim was misconceived and that the claimant had acted unreasonably by producing multiple versions of documents and ignoring costs warnings.
What the losing side could have done differently
The respondent had warned the claimant about costs from the outset, but the tribunal found that the claimant did not understand the legal issues and genuinely believed his case had merit. The respondent might have avoided the costs application by recognising that the claimant was not acting in bad faith. Instead, the application itself required a further hearing, adding to the respondent's costs.
Why this matters for similar claims
Employment tribunals operate on a 'costs-free' basis as a starting point. Costs orders are rare and reserved for cases where a party has acted vexatiously, abusively, disruptively, or otherwise unreasonably. This case confirms that a genuine belief in the claim, even if mistaken, can protect an unrepresented claimant from a costs order. It also highlights that tribunals will consider the claimant's understanding and circumstances, not just the objective weakness of the claim.
Similar cases
Asbestos removal workers' TUPE claims struck out: no transfer found
A group of former asbestos removal workers had their claims against three companies struck out after the tribunal found there was no TUPE transfer of their employment.
Less than two years' service: unfair dismissal claim thrown out
A tribunal dismissed an unfair dismissal claim because the employee had not worked for two years, and struck out a race discrimination claim that had no supporting facts.
Bookkeeper found self-employed: tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear unfair dismissal claim
An accountant who worked for Cornerstone Care Solutions Ltd as a bookkeeper was found to be self-employed, so the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear her unfair dismissal claim. The respondent's costs application was also refused.
Payments consultant allowed to add minimum wage and wrongful dismissal claims
A tribunal has granted a payments consultant permission to amend his claim to include wrongful dismissal and National Minimum Wage complaints, but refused to add automatic unfair dismissal. The case highlights the hurdles of bringing claims when working through a limited company.