Second Claimant: Ms D Michalik Mr K Williams v Prometheus Safe and Secure Ltd — 2026

Prometheus Safe & Secure Limited applied for costs against Ms D Michalik and Mr K Williams after they withdrew their unlawful deduction from wages claims. The claims, begun on 14 May 2024, alleged that unpaid on-call periods brought their pay below the National Minimum Wage. They said they were severely restricted in what they could do while on call. They withdrew the claims on the morning of the hearing on 17 March 2026, and the tribunal issued a judgment dismissing them on withdrawal that day.

For the purposes of the costs application, the tribunal found that the claims had no reasonable prospects of success following Royal Mencap Society v Tomlinson-Blake [2021] UKSC 8. The undisputed facts were that the claimants were not undertaking an assignment while on call and could be at home and asleep. Applying the Supreme Court's analysis of regulation 32 of the National Minimum Wage Regulations 2015, the tribunal found that the costs threshold under rule 74(2)(b) was met. It did not find that the claimants had acted vexatiously, abusively, disruptively or otherwise unreasonably. Continuing the claims and withdrawing them on the hearing morning did not establish the conduct ground under rule 74(2)(a).

The tribunal rejected the respondent's argument that there was no material difference between its grounds of resistance and counsel's skeleton argument. The grounds of resistance referred to regulation 32 but did not cite or analyse the Supreme Court judgment. The skeleton argument explained that judgment in detail and applied it to the facts. The judge recalled that the claims' weaknesses became apparent only after reading that argument and accepted that its timing explained the timing of withdrawal. Reliance on the internal grievance outcome did not persuade the tribunal otherwise.

In deciding whether to award costs, the tribunal recognised that the claimants had years to consider their position and that the respondent had no duty to explain the weaknesses in their case. It also took account of their lack of professional representation and the complexity of the law. Although withdrawal was late, the tribunal considered it better to withdraw than continue. It weighed these matters without treating any single point as decisive.

The tribunal considered the application on the papers on 11 June 2026, having given the claimants a reasonable opportunity to make written representations. It declined to exercise its discretion to award costs and refused the application. It therefore did not assess the costs incurred or consider whether to take the claimants' means into account. No costs award was made.