Mr H Slade v AND Kasteel Collection Limited — 2021

This judgment of 18 January 2022, heard in chambers by Employment Judge Gray, concerned the Respondent's application for costs after the Claimant had withdrawn his claim. The earlier preliminary-hearing judgment, sent to the parties on 30 November 2021, recorded that the Claimant's claim was dismissed on withdrawal. The reasons also note that the claim form had included unfair dismissal, age discrimination/child slavery, harassment, furlough fraud, unpaid holiday pay and unpaid pension contribution.

The Respondent applied for costs on the basis that the claim had no reasonable prospects of success and was frivolous and vexatious, pointing in particular to what it said were lack of particularisation and jurisdiction problems. The Claimant responded in writing, explaining that he had withdrawn because his mental health had stopped him from pursuing the case and that he could not afford a deposit fee. The tribunal noted that the costs application was dealt with on the papers after both sides were given an opportunity to make representations.

Applying rule 76 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure, the tribunal held that it could not say the claim had no real prospects of success from the outset, or that it was frivolous and vexatious without merit. It accepted that the lack of particulars had been the subject of earlier case management directions and noted that the Claimant had withdrawn rather than faced a deposit order or strike out warning. The tribunal therefore refused the Respondent's application for costs.