Employee who withdrew unfair dismissal claim ordered to pay £1,200 costs
A former employee who withdrew his unfair dismissal claim the day before a preliminary hearing has been ordered to pay £1,200 in costs after failing to comply with tribunal orders.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was dismissed on 23 July 2021 for alleged gross misconduct of making clothes for his own benefit during working time.
- The claimant presented a claim for unfair dismissal on 27 December 2021.
- The claimant failed to comply with case management orders and did not respond to the respondent's correspondence.
- The claimant withdrew his claim on 19 May 2022, the day before a scheduled preliminary hearing.
- The respondent applied for costs, which were awarded at £1,200.
Timeline
-
Employment start
The claimant began employment with Irubber Ltd.
-
Informal meeting and suspension
The claimant was called into an informal meeting, threatened, intimidated, bullied, and then suspended.
-
Dismissal
The claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct, accused of making clothes for his own benefit using company materials and patterns.
-
Appeal hearing
The claimant's appeal against dismissal was heard and the dismissal was confirmed.
-
Claim presented
The claimant presented a claim for unfair dismissal to the Employment Tribunal.
-
Case management orders
The Tribunal made orders including provision of a schedule of loss by 18 February 2022 and a list of documents by 15 April 2022.
-
ET3 filed
The respondent filed their response, denying unfair dismissal and alleging gross misconduct.
-
Claim withdrawn
The claimant's representative notified the Tribunal that the claimant was withdrawing his case.
-
Costs application
The respondent applied for costs, arguing the claimant acted vexatiously or unreasonably.
-
Costs hearing
Employment Judge Hutchinson heard the costs application in Nottingham.
-
Judgment issued
The Tribunal ordered the claimant to pay £1,200 in costs to the respondent.
The legal issue
Whether the claimant acted vexatiously or unreasonably in bringing or conducting the proceedings, so that a costs order should be made against him.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claim after it was withdrawn and ordered the claimant to pay £1,200 in costs to Irubber Ltd.
The key reasons were:
- The claimant failed to comply with any of the tribunal's case management orders, including providing a schedule of loss and a list of documents.
- He withdrew his claim only one day before a scheduled preliminary hearing, after the respondent had already prepared for it.
- The respondent incurred unnecessary costs in preparing the case, including drafting the ET3 response and a preliminary hearing agenda.
Compensation breakdown:
- Drafting ET3: £750
- Drafting list of documents: £300
- Completing preliminary hearing agenda: £300
- Preparing costs application: £300
- Total claimed: £2,040 (plus VAT), but tribunal awarded £1,200 (excluding VAT).
Lessons & takeaways
- If you bring a tribunal claim, you must comply with all case management orders or risk having costs awarded against you.
- Withdrawing a claim at the last minute, after the other side has already prepared for a hearing, can be seen as unreasonable conduct.
- Costs orders are relatively rare in employment tribunals but can be made when a party acts vexatiously or unreasonably.
- Even if you have a strong case on the merits, poor conduct of the proceedings can lead to financial penalties.
This case illustrates the risks of bringing a tribunal claim without following through on procedural obligations. The former employee, who had worked for Irubber Ltd for nearly 18 years, was dismissed for alleged gross misconduct — making clothes for his own benefit during work time. He claimed unfair dismissal, citing serious flaws in the disciplinary process.
However, the case never reached a full hearing on the merits. The claimant failed to provide a schedule of loss or a list of documents as ordered by the tribunal. He then withdrew his claim the day before a scheduled preliminary hearing, after the respondent had already prepared an agenda and incurred legal costs.
What the losing side could have done differently
The claimant's solicitor could have ensured compliance with the tribunal's orders or sought extensions if needed. Withdrawing the claim earlier — before the respondent had invested time and money — might have avoided the costs application. Alternatively, the claimant could have pursued the claim properly, given that the respondent had admitted failings in the disciplinary process.
Why this matters for similar claims
Employment tribunals generally do not award costs against individual claimants, but they can when a party acts unreasonably. This case shows that failing to engage with the process and withdrawing at the last minute can trigger a costs order. Claimants should be aware that bringing a claim carries responsibilities, and that ignoring tribunal orders can backfire financially.
Similar cases
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.
Whistleblowing claim dismissed: tribunal orders £2,000 costs for pursuing case with no prospects
A former employee's claim for automatic unfair dismissal based on alleged protected disclosures was dismissed, and she was ordered to pay £2,000 in costs for pursuing a case with no reasonable prospects.
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.
Claim struck out for failing to comply with tribunal orders
A former employee's unfair dismissal claim against Gateshead Health NHS Foundation Trust was struck out after he failed to comply with tribunal orders and did not respond to correspondence. He was ordered to pay £187.50 in costs.