Professor wins unfair dismissal case but hit with costs for failing to disclose £3m claim evidence
A University of Oxford professor won his unfair dismissal and age discrimination claims, but was ordered to pay £7,500 in costs after failing to provide remedy disclosure for his £3 million compensation claim.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #age-discrimination
- #unfair-dismissal
- #employer-justified-retirement-age
- #costs-order
- #disclosure-failure
Key facts
- The claimant was unfairly dismissed.
- The respondent subjected the claimant to unlawful direct age discrimination by applying the Employer Justified Retirement Age policy.
- The claimant was ordered to provide remedy disclosure by 17 July 2023 but failed to comply.
- The respondent made a detailed application for specific disclosure on 26 October 2023.
- The claimant has been seeking more than £3 million in compensation.
- The tribunal awarded costs of £7,500 against the claimant for unreasonable conduct.
Timeline
-
Disclosure order
The tribunal ordered the claimant to provide remedy disclosure by 17 July 2023.
-
Judgment on liability
The tribunal found the claimant was unfairly dismissed and subjected to unlawful direct age discrimination.
-
Disclosure deadline
The claimant failed to provide remedy disclosure by this date.
-
Limited disclosure
The claimant provided very limited remedy disclosure.
-
Respondent's application
The respondent made a detailed application for specific disclosure.
-
Hearing on disclosure
The tribunal gave the claimant a further opportunity to comply with the disclosure order.
-
Costs hearing
The tribunal considered the respondent's costs application and made a costs order of £7,500 against the claimant.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the professor was unfairly dismissed and whether the University of Oxford's application of its Employer Justified Retirement Age policy amounted to unlawful direct age discrimination.
The outcome
The tribunal found that the professor was unfairly dismissed and that the University of Oxford had subjected him to unlawful direct age discrimination by applying the Employer Justified Retirement Age policy.
However, the professor was ordered to pay £7,500 in costs to the university for unreasonable conduct in failing to comply with a disclosure order. The tribunal noted that the professor had been seeking more than £3 million in compensation but had failed to provide basic remedy disclosure despite multiple opportunities.
Lessons & takeaways
- Winning your case on liability does not guarantee you can avoid costs if you fail to comply with tribunal orders, especially regarding disclosure.
- If you are claiming substantial compensation, you must provide detailed evidence to support your losses, or risk having your claim struck out.
- Employers should ensure that retirement age policies are objectively justified and not applied in a discriminatory manner.
- Tribunals expect parties to comply with disclosure orders promptly; failure to do so can lead to costs orders even if you are the successful claimant.
A win that came at a price
This case shows that even a successful claimant can face significant consequences for failing to comply with tribunal procedures. The professor had won his unfair dismissal and age discrimination claims against the University of Oxford, but his victory was overshadowed by his failure to provide disclosure to support his £3 million compensation claim.
The tribunal was clear: the university was entitled to see the evidence backing up such a substantial claim. The professor had been ordered to provide remedy disclosure by July 2023 but did nothing until October, and even then only provided very limited information. Despite a further opportunity in November, he still failed to comply.
What the university could have done differently
The university acted reasonably throughout, making a detailed application for specific disclosure and seeking the tribunal's assistance. However, the case highlights that employers should ensure any retirement age policy is objectively justified and applied consistently. The tribunal found the Employer Justified Retirement Age policy was applied in a way that amounted to direct age discrimination.
Why this matters
For anyone considering bringing a claim, this case is a reminder that procedural compliance is just as important as winning on the facts. The tribunal made clear that it expects parties to comply with orders, and that failure to do so can result in costs, even for a successful claimant. It also shows that tribunals will scrutinise retirement age policies carefully to ensure they are not discriminatory.
Similar cases
Constructive dismissal claim struck out as out of time: costs order for late filing
A tribunal struck out a constructive dismissal claim presented five months after resignation and ordered the claimant to pay £1,013.48 in costs. The earlier age discrimination claim survived a strike-out application.
Redundancy claim struck out for non-disclosure: costs of £6,853 awarded
A senior manager's unfair dismissal claim was struck out after he failed to disclose documents about his new job. The tribunal ordered him to pay £6,853 in costs for unreasonable conduct.
Unfair dismissal win but no compensation: when a claim succeeds but the loss is zero
A former employee won her unfair dismissal claim against Stonewater Ltd but was awarded no compensation because she suffered no financial loss as a result of the dismissal.
Former employee wins unfair dismissal claim against Asda
A former employee succeeded in her unfair dismissal claim against Asda Stores Ltd, but her age discrimination and harassment complaints were dismissed. She was awarded £27,924.06.