Claimant v Heslop v Deichmann Shoes UK Ltd — 2020

This judgment determined only the claimant's application for costs, not the underlying unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal noted that the substantive judgment sent on 29 July 2020 had found the unfair dismissal claim well-founded and had ordered a basic award and compensatory award, subject to a 25% reduction for contributory fault and a 25% increase on the compensatory award for failure to follow the ACAS Code under section 207A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.

The claimant applied for costs on the basis that the respondent had acted unreasonably in the conduct of the proceedings, particularly by refusing judicial assessment, mediation, and negotiation after a letter sent on 13 July 2020. The respondent replied that it had believed the hearing outcome might be different and did not intend to act unreasonably, while apologising if its approach was viewed that way.

The tribunal set out the costs rules and the authorities it relied on, including the principles that costs in the Employment Tribunal are exceptional, compensatory rather than punitive, and must be approached judicially and with regard to the whole picture of the case. It also noted that the respondent had not had legal representation and had relied on its HR manager.

The tribunal found that this was not an exceptional case and that there had been a real, non-hopeless defence to the unfair dismissal claim. It accepted that the respondent had believed it had a reasonable prospect of defending the case at the final hearing, and it held that the costs threshold had not been met. The claimant's application for costs was therefore refused.