Case 1303708/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Scarlett Tyson v Listers Group Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 1303708/2023
- Decision date
- 28 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Akhtar Note
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Scarlett Tyson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningFollowing a hearing between 24 and 27 June 2024, the Tribunal dismissed the claimant's complaints of harassment, direct sex discrimination, victimisation and constructive unfair dismissal. The respondent then applied for costs, asserting that it was improper or unreasonable for the claimant to pursue claims said to be hopeless or doomed to fail, and referring to concessions made during cross-examination.
The Tribunal made no order for costs. It held that a wasted costs order under rule 78 could not be made against the claimant because she had been unrepresented, and it would also have rejected a costs application under the costs rule. The Tribunal found that although the claimant was unsuccessful and her presentation lacked evidential aspects, her conduct in bringing and conducting the claims was not unreasonable.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | The costs judgment records that, following a hearing between 24 and 27 June 2024, the Tribunal dismissed the claimant's complaint of harassment. This judgment itself determines only the respondent's costs application. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | The costs judgment records that, following a hearing between 24 and 27 June 2024, the Tribunal dismissed the claimant's complaint of direct sex discrimination. This judgment itself determines only the respondent's costs application. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Victimisation | The costs judgment records that, following a hearing between 24 and 27 June 2024, the Tribunal dismissed the claimant's complaint of victimisation. This judgment itself determines only the respondent's costs application. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Constructive dismissal | The costs judgment records that, following a hearing between 24 and 27 June 2024, the Tribunal dismissed the claimant's complaint of constructive unfair dismissal. This judgment itself determines only the respondent's costs application. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- Rule 78 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024
- Rule 74(2) Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024
- Rule 82 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024
- Power v Panasonic (UK) Ltd UKEAT/0439/04
- National Oilwell Varco UK Ltd v Van de Ruit UKEAT/0006/14
- Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council v Yerrakalva [2012] IRLR 78
- MacPherson v BNP Paribas (London Branch) (No 1) [2004] ICR 1398
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.