Mr J Hobson v First Rail Holdings Limited — 2023

At a Public Preliminary Hearing on 27 July 2022, the claimant's claim, described as a claim that he had been unfairly dismissed for making a protected disclosure, was struck out under Rule 37(1)(a) because it had no reasonable prospect of success. This judgment, heard on 15 December 2023, dealt only with the respondent's later application under Rule 76(1) for costs.

The respondent sought £4,260 in costs and argued that the claim was misconceived and vexatious, relying on prior costs warnings, the claimant's production of multiple versions of the Further Information and agenda documents, and the size of the losses claimed. The claimant said he had genuinely believed in the claim, had not taken legal advice, and had misunderstood the legal and procedural framework.

Employment Judge Langridge held that the threshold for considering a costs order was met because the claim had no reasonable prospect of success, but was not satisfied that the claimant had acted vexatiously, abusively, disruptively or otherwise unreasonably. Applying Solomon v University of Hertfordshire and Barnsley MBC v Yerrakalva, the judge found that the claimant's belief in the claim was genuine though mistaken and refused the respondent's costs application.