Case 2600007/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust — 2022
- Case reference
- 2600007/2020
- Decision date
- 30 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ayre
- Panel members
- Ms N Pratt, Ms K Mcleod
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis judgment was a costs hearing held on 12 October 2022 before Employment Judge Ayre sitting with Ms N Pratt and Ms K Mcleod. It followed the earlier merits judgment sent on 30 May 2022, in which the tribunal had unanimously dismissed all of the claimant's disability-related harassment allegations. The respondent applied for costs on the basis that the claimant had acted unreasonably in bringing and conducting the proceedings and that the claim had no reasonable prospects of success.
The tribunal accepted the respondent's case that the claimant had brought and pursued 66 allegations of harassment, that four allegations were withdrawn during the hearing, and that the claimant accepted one further allegation was not harassment but did not withdraw it. It also relied on findings from the earlier merits judgment, including that the claimant had made serious allegations that were not true, such as the allegation that Helen Wilson dragged her across a corridor, which the claimant later accepted had not literally happened. The tribunal held that the claimant had acted unreasonably and that the proceedings had no reasonable prospect of success.
In considering whether to make an order and in what amount, the tribunal took account of the claimant's ability to pay. It noted that she had access to trade union assistance and legal advice, owned a house with equity, had some savings, and had chosen to give up full-time work to start a four-year medical degree. The tribunal was not persuaded by her reliance on mental health as a reason to avoid a costs order, and it noted that her response to the costs warning letter was inaccurate in saying she had not taken advice after receiving it.
The respondent's Schedule of Costs totalled £36,745.61, with £18,340 incurred after the costs warning letter of 24 February 2022. The tribunal did not direct detailed assessment and instead made a broad-brush award of £20,000, which it said covered the post-warning costs together with a small amount for the earlier period.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Respondent's costs application under Rules 76(1)(a) and 76(1)(b) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 was granted. The underlying disability-related harassment allegations had already been dismissed in the earlier merits judgment sent on 30 May 2022. | Upheld | — | £20,000 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £20,000
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
12 references- Rules 74 to 78 Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- Rule 76(1)(a)
- Rule 76(1)(b)
- Rule 78
- Rule 84
- Gee v Shell UK Ltd [2003] IRLR 82
- Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council v Yerrakalva [2012] IRLR 78
- MacPherson v BNP Paribas (London Branch) (No 1) [2004] ICR 1398
- Arrowsmith v Nottingham Trent University [2012] ICR 159
- Oni v UNISON UKEAT/0370/14/LA
- Keskar v Governors of All Saints Church England School [1991] ICR 493
- Haydar v Pennine Acute NHS Trust UKEAT 0141/17/BA
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.