Case 2216000/2023 · Employment Tribunal

in person For the v Respondent — 2025

Case reference: 2216000/2023
Decision date: 16 May 2025
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge P Klimov

Indexed: 21 May 2026

Parties

1 named

Claimant

in person For the

Respondent

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

At the hearing on 12 and 13 May 2025 before Employment Judge P Klimov sitting alone, the tribunal did not determine the substantive merits of the underlying employment claims. Instead, it dealt with a costs application brought by the first respondent after the exchange of witness statements for the main hearing in January 2025.

The tribunal found that the claimant had acted vexatiously and unreasonably in the way that part of the proceedings had been conducted by her or on her behalf, and also found that the claim had no reasonable prospect of success. On that basis, it ordered the claimant to pay the respondents' legal costs incurred in defending the claim from the third day following the exchange of the January 2025 witness statements.

The costs order was capped at £80,000. The tribunal directed that the legal costs are to be assessed on the standard basis by the Employment Tribunal under Rule 76(1)(b)(i) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 if they are not agreed.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Other	This judgment did not determine the substantive liability claims. It concerned a costs application only, and the tribunal made findings that the claimant had acted vexatiously and unreasonably in part of the proceedings and that the claim had no reasonable prospect of success.	Other	—	—

Remedy

Monetary award

Total award: £80,000; across all upheld claims

Legal tests applied

3 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.