Ms Lillian Caller, Solicitor For the v Respondent — 2022

This was a costs hearing on 8 April 2022 arising out of the claimant's withdrawn tribunal claims against six individual respondents. The claimant had brought claims including unfair dismissal, sex discrimination and pregnancy discrimination, redundancy payment, and various money claims after her employment ended on 7 July 2020 when the store closed and she was served with redundancy notices. The tribunal was not deciding the merits of those claims; it was deciding whether a costs order should be made under rule 76(1)(a) and (b) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013.

Applying the objective test for reasonable prospects, and limited to the pleaded case because no merits evidence had been heard, the tribunal held that the claims against the individual respondents had no reasonable prospect of success from the outset. It found there was nothing in the pleaded case showing that the directors knew of the claimant's pregnancy, were involved in any decision whether to offer her alternative employment, or acted because of sex or pregnancy. The screenshots of WhatsApp and text messages did not advance the case because they did not amount to evidence of job offers and did not link the discussions to the individual directors.

The tribunal also noted that the claimant's claim form contained allegations of fraud against the directors which were irrelevant and had no factual basis, describing them as an unjustified personal smear amounting to unreasonable conduct. It therefore found that the threshold for a costs order was met and that it was just to make one.

When fixing the amount, the tribunal took account of the claimant's means, including statutory maternity allowance of £600 per month, rental income of £850 per month from a property purchased for £160,000, savings of £600, and stated monthly outgoings. It also took account of the fact that she was not professionally represented before withdrawal, that company-law complexities may have been lost on her, that the dismissal letter referred to "Directors of Coffeesmiths Collective", and that the claims were withdrawn promptly after the preliminary hearing on 1 April 2021. The respondents had sought £6,900 in costs, but the tribunal awarded £1,200 in total.