Case 2409769/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr I Wilson v Fircroft Engineering Services Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2409769/2020
- Decision date
- 7 October 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Robinson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr I Wilson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a remote hearing in Manchester on 24 September 2021, before Employment Judge Robinson sitting alone, the tribunal dealt with the respondent's application for costs. The claimant appeared in person and the respondent was represented by a solicitor. The judgment records that the claimant had acted otherwise unreasonably and that his claim had no reasonable prospect of success, so the rule 76 threshold for a costs order was met.
Taking account of the claimant's status as a litigant in person and the financial information he gave on oath, the tribunal assessed the reasonable sum payable to the respondent's solicitors at £6,000. The tribunal ordered that sum to be paid forthwith. The written record notes that reasons had been given orally at the hearing and that the judgment was sent to the parties on 7 October 2021.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Respondent's rule 76 costs application succeeded. The tribunal found the claimant had acted otherwise unreasonably and that his claim had no reasonable prospect of success. | Upheld | — | £6,000 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,000
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 76
- no reasonable prospect of success
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.