1. Dr A Aftab 2. Prof R Scarpa v Durham University and 2 others — 2024

This judgment did not determine the underlying protected disclosure claims on their merits. It dealt with the respondents' application for costs against Dr Aftab and Prof Scarpa in the joined proceedings against Durham University and two individual respondents. The tribunal said the costs application arose because the claimants had presented their cases in a dense narrative style, had repeatedly failed to identify the precise disclosures and detriments relied on, and had not complied with case management directions requiring concise particulars.

The tribunal found that the claimants acted unreasonably under rule 76(1)(a) when they attended the 7 September 2022 hearing unable to identify the disclosures said to have been made in relation to two of the four disclosures, and unable to identify the detriments they were advancing other than those expressly pleaded in the original Grounds of Complaint. It also found unreasonable conduct in their failure to comply properly with subsequent orders, and in the last-minute adjournment application made on 12 April 2023 after they had again revised their case shortly before the hearing. The tribunal treated the late adjournment as engaging rule 76(1)(c) as well.

In exercising discretion, the tribunal accepted that conduct after the 31 May 2023 hearing was not unreasonable because the amended pleadings were then sufficiently clear to permit effective progress. It nevertheless concluded that the earlier conduct had caused nine months of unnecessary and avoidable cost and delay. The tribunal applied the principles in Vaughan, Yerrakalva, McPherson, Gee and Lodwick, and noted that costs are compensatory rather than punitive.

For quantum, the tribunal allowed the respondents' solicitors' costs of £25,134.50 incurred between 5 September 2022 and 30 May 2023, of which £19,296 had been incurred after 8 February 2023, together with counsel's fees of £7,333. It applied a 15% reduction to reflect that some post-8 February work had some value going forward, and then apportioned the resulting figure equally between the two claimants. The result was an order that Dr Aftab and Prof Scarpa each pay £14,786.55, making a combined costs order of £29,573.10. The tribunal recorded that no evidence of means was provided.