John Inokoba v Mitie Limited — 2025

The tribunal dismissed the claimant's claims of detriment on grounds related to Trade Union membership or activities. All but one allegation were found to be out of time, and the tribunal held it had been reasonably practicable to bring them in time, deciding the point against the claimant for substantially the reasons given in the Deposit Order of 27 January 2025. The remaining in-time allegation (concerning Mr Jesus not responding to the claimant's email of 21 May 2024) failed on substantive grounds.

On the respondent's costs application, the judge found that under Rule 40(7)(a) the claimant was to be treated as having behaved unreasonably because the time limit point was decided against him on substantially the same basis as the deposit order. Weighing factors against the claimant (the deposit order, EJ Corrigan's earlier comment about difficulty, the claimant's experience as a Trade Union representative, and his prior tribunal experience) against factors in his favour (the in-time allegation, factual overlap between claims, and the respondent's responsibility through Mr Jesus' repeated failure to give the outcome of the grievance), the judge concluded a costs order was appropriate but should be reduced.

The respondent's costs schedule of £52,054.91 (inclusive of VAT) was found to be disproportionate and excessive for what was not a particularly complicated claim. Applying a broadbrush approach, the judge assessed reasonable costs at around £18,807.50, then further reduced this to reflect that much work would have been required in any event for the in-time allegation. The £200 deposit was ordered paid to the respondent under Rule 40(7)(b), and the claimant was ordered to pay £2,500 towards the respondent's costs (with the deposit counting towards this sum, leaving £2,300 to pay).