Mr J Friend v InvictaK9 Ltd — 2025

By judgment dated 20 August 2025, Employment Judge Abbott allowed the respondent's application for costs under Rule 74 and ordered Mr J Friend to pay InvictaK9 Ltd £1,500. The application was determined on paper. The tribunal noted that the unfair dismissal complaint had already been struck out on 16 July 2025 for having no reasonable prospects of success, because the claimant had not accrued two years' continuous employment; the complaints of wrongful dismissal, unlawful deduction of wages and unpaid holiday pay were not struck out.

Applying Rule 74(2), Rule 76 and Rule 82, and referring to Yerrakalva and Radia, the tribunal found that the unfair dismissal complaint was objectively flawed from the outset and that the claimant must have been aware, or ought to have been aware, of the fundamental problem. The tribunal relied in particular on repeated warnings from the respondent, the claimant's representation by a lay representative with extensive experience of employment law, and the absence of any evidence that the claimant had the necessary continuous service.

On quantification, the tribunal accepted that a large proportion of the respondent's costs had been incurred on the unfair dismissal issue, but noted that the invoices did not break down the work line by line and that the fees claimed, £7,277.50 exclusive of VAT, were high in light of the value and stage of the case. It also took into account the claimant's limited means, including evidence that he owed £3,985 to an individual he had engaged in 2020-2021. Balancing those factors, the tribunal fixed the costs award at £1,500.