Case 1600852/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs S Foreman v Green Willow Funerals Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 1600852/2022
- Decision date
- 18 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge C Sharp
- Panel members
- Mrs A Burge, Mrs J Beard
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs S Foreman
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis is a reserved costs judgment following a liability judgment promulgated on 14 February 2024 which dismissed the Claimant's victimisation claim and recorded the withdrawal of her claims of direct sex discrimination, marriage discrimination and unfair dismissal. The Respondent applied for a costs order on 4 March 2024, seeking £10,000 against asserted total legal costs in excess of £25,000, on the basis that the Claimant had acted unreasonably and that her claims had no reasonable prospect of success.
Applying Rule 76(1)(a) and (b) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure, and considering authorities including McPherson v BNP Paribas, Radia v Jefferies International Ltd, HCA International Ltd v May-Bheemul, Cartiers Superfoods Ltd v Laws, Marler v Robertson and Vaughan v London Borough of Lewisham, the Tribunal found that the Claimant unreasonably pursued the direct sex discrimination, marriage discrimination and victimisation claims with no reasonable prospect of success from 2 December 2022 onwards. The Tribunal noted that the Respondent's representative and a previous judge (Judge Moore) had explained the legal requirements to the Claimant, and that the Claimant had failed to adduce evidence on key issues and had asserted matters (such as being told about a restructure she had sought) that could not reasonably be viewed as detriments.
The Tribunal exercised its discretion to make a costs order, taking into account that the Claimant was a litigant in person who genuinely believed in her claims, but also that she had provided no evidence of means despite being directed to do so, that both she and her husband had received substantial sums on leaving the Respondent's employ, and that costs orders are not the norm in this jurisdiction. The Tribunal directed the Claimant to pay £10,000 to the Respondent, considering this to be an underestimate of the costs reasonably and necessarily incurred dealing with the claims that had no reasonable prospect of success.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | Direct sex discrimination claim withdrawn by the Claimant at the outset of the final hearing after the Judge took her through the claims and legal questions. The present judgment is a costs decision following the earlier liability judgment of 14 February 2024. | Withdrawn | Sex | — |
| Marriage or civil partnership discrimination | Direct marriage discrimination claim withdrawn by the Claimant at the outset of the final hearing. The Tribunal found in the costs judgment that this claim had no reasonable prospect of success from 2 December 2022. | Withdrawn | Marriage / civil partnership | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Unfair dismissal claim withdrawn by the Claimant at the outset of the final hearing. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Victimisation | Victimisation claim was dismissed by the liability judgment promulgated on 14 February 2024 (referenced in this costs judgment). The Tribunal found in the present costs judgment that the Claimant had failed to establish the existence of any protected acts or detriments, and pursued the claim with no reasonable prospect of success from 2 December 2022. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- Rule 76(1)(a) and (b) Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure
- McPherson v BNP Paribas 2004 ICR 1398, CA
- Radia v Jefferies International Ltd (2020) IRLR 431
- HCA International Ltd v May-Bheemul UKEAT/0477/10/ZT
- Cartiers Superfoods Ltd v Laws [1978] IRLR 315
- Marler v Robertson [1974] ICR 72
- Vaughan v London Borough of Lewisham and others 2013 IRLR 713 EAT
- s.251B Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
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.