Costs application refused: a week's delay in disclosure was not unreasonable
A former employee who sought £1,550 in costs after the respondent delayed disclosure by a week has had his application refused. The tribunal found the conduct was not unreasonable.
1 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Key facts
- The claimant brought claims of constructive unfair dismissal, unauthorised deductions, holiday pay, and failure to provide payslips.
- The respondent was unrepresented and delayed disclosure by about a week.
- A preliminary hearing was listed on 8 September 2023 due to compliance issues.
- The claimant applied for costs of £1,550.52 for the preliminary hearing.
- The tribunal refused the costs application, finding no unreasonable conduct.
Timeline
-
Claim presented
The claimant submitted his claim form in person.
-
Claim processed
The tribunal processed the claim and set a final hearing for 9-10 November 2023.
-
Respondent applied for extension
The respondent applied for an extension to file its response, citing mail delays.
-
Response filed
The respondent submitted its response.
-
Claimant's disclosure
The claimant submitted his disclosure to the respondent by hand.
-
Claimant sought strike-out
The claimant emailed the tribunal seeking a strike-out or unless order due to respondent's failures.
-
Preliminary hearing listed
Employment Judge Povey directed an urgent case management hearing for 8 September 2023.
-
Preliminary hearing
Employment Judge Povey reset directions and noted the claimant's intention to apply for costs.
-
Costs application
The claimant's solicitor submitted a costs application for £1,550.52.
-
Respondent's response to costs
The respondent provided submissions in response to the costs application.
-
Costs judgment
Employment Judge S Jenkins refused the costs application.
The legal issue
Whether the respondent's failure to disclose documents on time, and other minor procedural breaches, amounted to unreasonable conduct justifying a costs order.
The outcome
The tribunal refused the claimant's application for costs of £1,550.52.
- The respondent, a small company acting in person, delayed disclosure by about a week but had provided a reasonable explanation.
- The tribunal found that the respondent's conduct did not meet the high threshold of 'unreasonable' required for a costs order.
- No compensation was awarded as the application was dismissed in full.
Lessons & takeaways
- Costs are rarely awarded in employment tribunals unless a party has acted vexatiously, abusively, or unreasonably — a simple delay of a few days is unlikely to qualify.
- If you are a litigant in person, keep the tribunal informed of any difficulties complying with directions; a prompt explanation can protect you from a costs application.
- Before applying for costs, consider whether the other side's conduct was truly unreasonable or just inconvenient — tribunals expect a high bar.
- Always copy the other party into tribunal correspondence — failing to do so can lead to case management hearings and potential cost risks.
This case shows that not every procedural slip-up will lead to a costs order. The former employee had brought claims for constructive unfair dismissal and other issues. The respondent, a small company without legal representation, missed the disclosure deadline by about a week. The claimant argued that this delay forced a preliminary hearing and caused unnecessary expense.
What the tribunal decided
The tribunal refused the costs application. It noted that the respondent had provided a reasonable explanation for the delay — a change of registered office causing mail delays — and had disclosed the documents before the preliminary hearing. The judge found that the respondent's conduct did not meet the legal test of 'unreasonable' behaviour. The threshold for costs in employment tribunals is high: a party must have acted vexatiously, abusively, or otherwise unreasonably in bringing or conducting proceedings.
What could have been done differently
The respondent could have copied the claimant into its extension application and kept him informed. The claimant, in turn, could have waited a few more days before seeking a strike-out. Both sides contributed to the escalation, but the tribunal did not see the respondent's actions as warranting a penalty.
Why this matters
For anyone considering a costs application, this case is a reminder that tribunals are reluctant to award costs against unrepresented parties for minor delays. The focus is on whether the conduct was 'unreasonable' in a legal sense, not merely inconvenient. If you are on the receiving end of a costs application, a clear explanation for any delay can be a strong defence.
Similar cases
Senior academic ordered to pay £1,000 costs after failing to comply with tribunal order
A highly qualified academic who failed to provide a supplemental impact statement as ordered by the tribunal has been ordered to pay £1,000 in costs. The tribunal found his conduct unreasonable and that it caused a hearing to be postponed.
Claims struck out after housing officer failed to serve witness statement
A former housing officer's unfair dismissal and discrimination claims were struck out after she repeatedly failed to serve a witness statement, despite extensions and warnings. She was also ordered to pay £3,870 in costs.
Track technician's unfair dismissal claim struck out for failing to attend hearings
A Transport for London track technician who resigned and then failed to comply with tribunal orders or attend hearings has had his unfair dismissal claim struck out.
Claim dismissed after claimant failed to attend hearing: costs awarded for unreasonable conduct
An unfair dismissal claim was dismissed after the claimant failed to attend the final hearing and a preliminary hearing. The tribunal also ordered the claimant to pay £3,460.80 in costs for unreasonable conduct.