Case 1405733/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs A Tomkins v University Hospital Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust — 2025
- Case reference
- 1405733/2023
- Decision date
- 13 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge O’Rourke Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs A Tomkins
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant had brought a constructive unfair dismissal claim against the respondent. The tribunal recorded that the claim had been heard in March 2025 and dismissed on 19 March 2025.
The respondent then applied for a costs order, relying on the dismissal of the claim, a costs warning letter, and the claimant's rejection of a drop-hands offer. The tribunal found that the threshold for making a costs order had not been reached, noting that one allegation had some merit before evidence was heard and that the claimant was a litigant in person for part of the proceedings.
The tribunal also stated that, even if the threshold had been reached, it would not have exercised its discretion to award costs. The application for a costs order was refused.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The costs judgment states that the claimant brought a claim of constructive unfair dismissal, which was dismissed on 19 March 2025. This judgment itself decides the respondent's costs application, which is not a claim type in the locked taxonomy. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- Rule 74 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure 2013
- Rule 82 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure 2013
- Brooks v Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust [2019] UKEAT/0246/18
- Kopel v Safeway Stores Plc [2003] IRLR 753 EAT
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.