Late redundancy claim dismissed and plumber ordered to pay £6,800 costs
A plumber on a fixed-term contract had his unfair dismissal and wages claims thrown out for being presented too late, and was ordered to pay £6,800 in costs for continuing to pursue a weak case after warnings.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #out-of-time
- #costs-order
- #vexatious-conduct
- #withdrawn-discrimination-claims
- #unreasonable-conduct
Key facts
- The claimant presented his claim on 14 December 2021, which was out of time.
- The claimant withdrew his discrimination complaints and amendment application at the start of the hearing.
- The tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to present his claim in time.
- The claimant continued to pursue his claims after 21 April 2022 despite warnings and lack of merit.
- The claimant's conduct after the case management hearing was found vexatious and unreasonable.
- The claimant was ordered to pay £6,800 in costs for the period after 11 April 2022.
Timeline
-
Appeal dismissal
The respondent dismissed the claimant's appeal against his dismissal.
-
Claim presented
The claimant presented his claim for unfair dismissal, discrimination, and wages.
-
Respondent's ET3
The respondent filed its response, arguing the claim was out of time.
-
Claimant instructs solicitors
The claimant instructed solicitors, who represented him from the case management hearing onward.
-
Case management hearing
At the PHCM, the claimant changed the basis of his discrimination complaints and accepted the claim was out of time.
-
Costs warning
The respondent's solicitors wrote to the claimant's solicitors, warning of a costs application if the claim was not withdrawn.
-
Application to amend
The claimant's solicitors applied to amend the claim, materially changing the pleaded case.
-
U-turn on time issue
The claimant's solicitors reversed their position, arguing the claim was in time and relying on the appeal letter.
-
Open preliminary hearing
At the OPH, the claimant withdrew his amendment application and all discrimination claims; the tribunal dismissed the remaining claims for lack of jurisdiction and made a costs order.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's unfair dismissal and wages claims were presented in time, and if not, whether time should be extended; also whether the claimant had acted vexatiously or unreasonably to justify a costs order.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims for lack of jurisdiction because the claim was presented out of time and it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to have presented it earlier.
The claimant withdrew his discrimination complaints and amendment application at the start of the hearing. The tribunal found that after 21 April 2022, when the respondent warned of a costs application, the claimant continued to pursue claims that lacked merit, amounting to vexatious and unreasonable conduct.
Compensation:
- Costs order: £6,800 (for legal costs incurred after 11 April 2022)
Lessons & takeaways
- Employment tribunal claims must be presented within three months of the dismissal date – check the deadline carefully and act promptly.
- If you receive a costs warning from the other side, seriously consider whether to continue – pursuing a weak claim can lead to a costs order against you.
- Withdrawing weak parts of a claim at the last minute may not protect you from a costs order if you have already caused unnecessary expense.
- Getting legal advice early can help you assess the merits and time limits of your claim before it becomes too late.
A case that shows the risks of late claims and unreasonable conduct
This case involved a plumber who worked for Shepherd’s Bush Housing Association on a fixed-term contract. After his dismissal, he brought claims for unfair dismissal, discrimination, and wages – but he presented his claim on 14 December 2021, more than three months after his appeal was dismissed on 6 August 2021. The tribunal found that it was reasonably practicable for him to have claimed in time, so it had no jurisdiction to hear the case.
What the losing side could have done differently
The claimant could have avoided the costs order by withdrawing his claim after receiving the respondent's warning letter on 21 April 2022. Instead, he continued to pursue the case, even changing his position on the time limit issue shortly before the hearing. The tribunal described his conduct after that date as vexatious and unreasonable, leading to a costs order of £6,800.
Why this matters for similar claims
This case is a reminder that employment tribunals take time limits seriously. If you miss the deadline, you will need to show it was not reasonably practicable to claim in time – a high bar. It also shows that pursuing a claim after a clear warning can backfire financially. For employers, it demonstrates that robust case management and early costs warnings can deter unmeritorious claims.
Similar cases
Costs of £4,490 for bringing a claim with no reasonable prospect of success
A former employee who brought claims of unfair dismissal, disability discrimination and holiday pay arrears has been ordered to pay £4,490 in costs after failing to attend hearings and ignoring a Calderbank offer.
Costs application against former employee dismissed: tribunal finds no unreasonable conduct
A tribunal has dismissed a company's application for a costs order and a wasted costs order against a former employee and her solicitor, finding that the claim was adequately particularised and that neither party acted unreasonably.
Costs of £15,165 for pursuing baseless claims: a warning on unreasonable conduct
A former employee who brought discrimination and harassment claims with no basis in fact has been ordered to pay £15,165 in costs after the tribunal found her conduct vexatious and unreasonable.
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.