Case 1803866/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Taylor First v The Governing Body of Boston Spa Academy. Second Respondent : The Gorse Academies Trust — 2020
- Case reference
- 1803866/2020
- Decision date
- 1 October 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shepherd JUDGMENT
- Venue
- Leeds This was a remote hearing
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Taylor First
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a reserved judgment on the respondents’ application for costs, not a decision on the merits of the underlying claim. The claimant had presented a claim on 17 July 2020, described in the judgment as a post-employment victimisation claim. After the respondents’ response and the disclosure of Academy Transfer documents on 17 November 2020, the claimant sought counsel’s advice and withdrew the claim at 6:54 am on 3 December 2020, the day fixed for the first preliminary hearing.
The respondents sought costs of £82,543.22 and argued that the claim had no reasonable prospects of success because neither respondent had ever employed the claimant and, in any event, the claim was hopeless on the merits. The tribunal reviewed the authorities relied on, including rule 76, Doyle, Haydar, Yerraklava and Gee, and considered the position that the claimant and his trade union had initially thought there was a reasonable basis for a post-termination victimisation claim and had not appreciated the significance of the school’s change of status from Boston Spa School to Boston Spa Academy.
The tribunal found that the claim was not entirely hopeless and was not without reasonable prospects of success. It accepted that, once the response and transfer documentation had been received, it was not unreasonable for the claimant and his adviser to seek counsel’s opinion and then withdraw the claim before the first case management hearing. The tribunal also held that the period between receiving the documents on 17 November 2020 and withdrawal on 3 December 2020 was not unreasonable, and it did not accept that the claimant had acted unreasonably in bringing or conducting the proceedings.
Because the threshold for a costs order was not met, the tribunal refused the application. It said that the respondents’ claimed costs were wholly out of proportion to the limited progress of the case and that, even if the threshold had been reached, any award would have been only a very small fraction of the sum claimed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Respondents' application for costs under rule 76 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- rule 76 Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- Haydar v Pennine Acute NHS Trust three-stage test
- Doyle v North West London Hospitals NHS Trust
- Yerraklava v Barnsley MBC
- Gee v Shell UK Limited
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.