Mr D Taheri (using the alias James Davidson) v Nuestra Familia Restaurants Ltd — 2023

The claimant, described in the proceedings as James Davidson, brought a disability discrimination claim arising from a January 2023 application for a crew member role with the respondent. The tribunal found that James Davidson was an alias used by David Taheri, relying on the matching contact details, the referee details, the Burger King San Jose reference, and the chat exchanges in which Taheri said he had applied under an alias and later said his real name was David Taheri. Because Taheri had been made subject to an indefinite Restriction of Proceedings Order by the EAT on 25 February 2022, the tribunal held that the proceedings were a nullity because they were brought without EAT permission.

The tribunal also recorded that the claim was withdrawn by email on 15 March 2023; in the alternative, if the proceedings were not a nullity, the claim was dismissed on that basis. The claimant did not attend the costs hearing and did not supply identity documents or evidence to rebut the respondent's case. The tribunal accepted that the online application and the later ET claim were brought in the context of the claimant's assertion of disability discrimination, but found no valid basis for proceeding under the alias.

On costs, the tribunal applied rule 76 of the Employment Tribunals Rules 2013, together with rules 78 and 84, and referred to Gee v Shell UK Ltd, McPherson v BNP Paribas (London Branch), Barnsley MBC v Yerrakalva, A Q Limited v Holden, Mardner v Gardner, Sunuva Ltd v Martin, and Williamson v Bishop of London. It held that the claimant had acted vexatiously, abusively and unreasonably both in seeking employment and in bringing the proceedings, and that the respondent's legal costs were reasonably incurred. The respondent's costs application was refined from £2,916 to £4,136 including the costs of the hearing, and that total was ordered to be paid.