Mr Oliver Metcalfe v St John's School Foundation — 2024

Following the liability judgment sent on 27 February 2024, the respondent applied for costs on the basis that Mr Metcalfe had fabricated a number of key documents. Mr Metcalfe did not attend the hearing. In his written response he said he was unemployed, had no regular income and had no savings.

The tribunal held that the submission and defence of a pattern of fabricated documents was unreasonable conduct for the purposes of Rule 76. It distinguished the authorities relied on by Mr Metcalfe on the basis that this case involved more than a single lie: the documents were said to have been designed to mislead the tribunal and present a fundamentally false picture of the respondent's actions.

The respondent's costs were summarily assessed on the standard basis. From a claimed figure of £21,097.32 (£17,581.10 plus VAT), the tribunal reduced the time spent on certain personal attendances by 5 hours at Grade C and 3 hours at Grade D, reducing the figure by £1,390.80 to £19,706.52 inclusive of VAT. Under Rule 84 and the guidance in Vaughan v London Borough of Lewisham (No. 2), the tribunal considered Mr Metcalfe's ability to pay and noted his age, qualifications and prior earnings above £40,000, but made no further reduction. The costs order was not to be enforced without leave of the tribunal because an appeal against the liability judgment was ongoing.