Mr K Khan v Louis Vuitton UK Limited — 2024

This decision concerns only the Respondent's written application for costs, not the merits of the underlying unfair dismissal or disability discrimination claims. After refusing the Claimant's amendment application on 29 January 2024, the Tribunal invited the Respondent to put any costs application in writing. The Respondent applied on 2 February 2024, contending that the Claimant had acted unreasonably in bringing and conducting the amendment application, and the Claimant responded on 13 February 2024 explaining why the amendment had been sought and setting out his personal circumstances.

The Tribunal set out rule 76 and rule 84 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013 and referred to Power v Panasonic (UK) Ltd, National Oilwell Varco UK Ltd v Van de Ruit, Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council v Yerrakalva, and MacPherson v BNP Paribas (London Branch) (No 1). It emphasised that costs orders are the exception, that the Tribunal has a wide discretion, and that it must look at the whole picture when deciding whether there has been unreasonable conduct.

The Tribunal accepted that the Claimant had given detailed reasons for making the amendment application, had obtained legal advice, and had been represented at the hearing. It did not accept that the application had been made unreasonably or without proper thought. Although there had been delay in presenting the application, the Tribunal did not find that this was deliberate and accepted that there were multiple personal circumstances contributing to the delay, including the Claimant's mental health, therapy, family responsibilities, his wife's difficult pregnancy, and his father's ill-health.

The Tribunal therefore found that the Respondent had not shown that the Claimant's conduct met the threshold for unreasonable conduct under rule 76(1)(a). It declined to consider the amount of costs and made no order for costs against the Claimant.