Mr C Veitch v Alternative Futures Group Limited — 2025

This judgment concerned the respondent's application for costs, not the merits of the claimant's underlying employment claims. The claimant had originally brought unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, protected disclosure detriment and part-time worker claims, but withdrew the dismissal claims on 14 April 2023 and later withdrew the remaining protected disclosure and part-time worker claims in full on 10 June 2024, shortly before the final hearing listed for July 2024.

The respondent sought costs on the basis that the claimant had continued with claims that lacked reasonable prospects and had withdrawn late, after the respondent had incurred preparation costs. The tribunal noted the respondent's costs warning letter of 15 January 2024, the later correspondence about witness statements and disclosure, and the claimant's late withdrawal. It also recorded the claimant's case that he had complied with case management orders, that he was represented by an inexperienced lay representative, and that he understood the respondent's offer as remaining open until the matter was due to progress to final hearing.

Applying rule 74 and the guidance in McPherson and Yerrakelva, the tribunal held that the claimant and/or his representative had not acted vexatiously, abusively, disruptively or otherwise unreasonably in bringing or conducting the proceedings. It accepted that the claimant was not legally trained, treated the lay representation with appropriate caution, and found that the claimant's withdrawal of claims after the first case management hearing, his application to amend following that hearing, and his interpretation of the respondent's costs-warning offer did not cross the threshold for a costs order.

The tribunal accepted that the claimant could be criticised for not replying to the respondent's correspondence of 24 May 2024 and 10 June 2024, but held that this, together with the relatively late withdrawal, was still insufficient to justify costs. The respondent's application was therefore dismissed and no costs order was made.