Whistleblowing claim: repeated amendment applications not unreasonable enough for costs
A former chartered accountant who made multiple applications to amend her whistleblowing and sex discrimination claims avoided a costs order, even though most amendments were refused. The tribunal said her conduct was not unreasonable or vexatious.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed by R1 from 2 March 2022 to 14 April 2023.
- She was dismissed for gross misconduct on 14 April 2023.
- She claimed automatic unfair dismissal and detriments for whistleblowing, alleging sexual harassment.
- Her interim relief application was refused on 31 July 2023.
- She made multiple applications to amend her claims, which were largely refused.
- The respondents' costs application was refused because the claimant was a litigant in person.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began employment with Bennbridge Services LLP.
-
Dismissal
Claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct.
-
ET1 lodged
Claimant lodged a claim for automatic unfair dismissal and detriments for whistleblowing.
-
Interim relief hearing
Employment Judge Gidney refused the claimant's interim relief application.
-
Case management hearing
Case management hearing with Employment Judge Singh.
-
First amendment application
Claimant applied to add bullying, sexual discrimination, and sexual harassment claims.
-
Amendment hearing
Employment Judge Keogh refused most amendments but allowed a victimisation claim.
-
Further amendments
Claimant made five further amendment applications between December 2023 and March 2024.
-
Costs hearing
Employment Judge Henderson heard the respondents' costs application.
-
Costs decision
Employment Judge Henderson refused the costs application.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's repeated applications to amend her claim were unreasonable or vexatious, and whether a costs order should be made against her.
The outcome
The tribunal refused the respondents' application for costs of £16,765.
The key reasons were:
- The claimant was a litigant in person and her conduct, while persistent, did not meet the high threshold of being unreasonable or vexatious.
- The tribunal noted that the claimant had some success in an earlier amendment hearing (victimisation claim allowed) and that her applications, though numerous, were not entirely without merit.
- The respondents' application was refused in full.
Lessons & takeaways
- Litigants in person are given more leeway than represented parties when it comes to costs applications — the threshold for costs is high.
- Making multiple amendment applications can risk a costs order, but if each has some arguable basis, it may not be deemed unreasonable.
- Employers should consider the costs of fighting multiple amendments against the risk of a costs order being refused.
- A claimant who is acting in person should keep applications focused and avoid repeated, overlapping amendments to reduce the risk of costs.
What this case shows
This case illustrates the challenges faced by litigants in person who try to expand their claims after the initial complaint. The claimant, a former chartered accountant, was dismissed for gross misconduct after less than 14 months' service. She claimed automatic unfair dismissal for whistleblowing, alleging sexual harassment. Over several months, she made multiple applications to add claims of bullying, sex discrimination, and sexual harassment. Most were refused, but one — victimisation — was allowed.
What the employer could have done differently
The employer, Bennbridge Services LLP, applied for costs of £16,765, arguing that the claimant's repeated amendments were unreasonable and caused prejudice. However, the tribunal found that the claimant's conduct, while persistent, did not cross the line into unreasonable or vexatious behaviour. The employer might have avoided the costs application by seeking earlier case management directions to limit amendments, or by engaging with the claimant's proposals more constructively.
Why this matters
The decision reinforces that costs orders in employment tribunals are exceptional, especially against litigants in person. Even where a claimant's applications are largely unsuccessful, the tribunal will consider whether they had any reasonable basis. For employers, this means that simply because a claimant makes many amendments does not guarantee a costs award. For claimants, the case is a reminder that while the tribunal is tolerant of self-represented litigants, keeping amendments focused and timely is advisable to avoid the risk of costs.
Similar cases
Claims struck out after claimant and representative fail to attend hearing
A former employee's race and sex discrimination claims were struck out after she and her representative failed to attend a preliminary hearing without explanation. A later bid to reinstate the case was refused.
Whistleblowing managing director loses interim relief bid after failing to provide death certificate
A managing director who claimed she was dismissed for whistleblowing saw her interim relief application refused and later had her entire claim struck out for failing to comply with an unless order to provide her mother's death certificate. She was also ordered to pay £3,000 in costs.
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.
Dismissed without notice and discriminated against: a double blow for a former employee
A former employee was unfairly dismissed, wrongfully dismissed without notice, and discriminated against on grounds of sex. The tribunal awarded £16,208.68, including an uplift for the employer's failure to follow the ACAS code.