Mr E Haynes v Chief Constable of Leicestershire Police Heard: In chambers on written representations — 2024

This judgment concerns the respondent's application for a costs order of £19,022 under rule 76(1)(b) of the 2013 rules, following an earlier judgment of 18 April 2024 that dismissed the claimant's claim of constructive unfair dismissal. The application was determined on written representations and a sum under £20,000 fell to be assessed under rule 78(1)(a). The respondent argued that the claim had no reasonable prospect of success from the outset, or in any event by the exchange of witness statements, pointing to its costs warnings and drop-hands settlement offers.

Employment Judge Clark held that the costs threshold was not engaged. The judge considered each limb of the claim (breach, reasonable and proper cause, and affirmation) and concluded that it could not be said the claim had no reasonable prospect of success when issued, particularly given that EJ Ahmed had previously refused both strike out and a deposit order at a preliminary hearing in April 2023. The claimant had also taken reasonable steps to obtain professional advice, including a positive insurance prospects test, and had support from colleagues. The judge did not accept that disclosure and exchange of witness statements altered the position so as to bring the claim within the no reasonable prospect test.

The judge added that, had the threshold been made out, he would not have exercised the discretion to make a costs order, in light of EJ Ahmed's earlier refusal, the steps the claimant took to obtain advice and funding, and the balance of factors. The claimant's means (a monthly surplus of around £1,038 reducing to around £316, and an ISA of £413) were noted as potentially relevant to quantum but not as preventing an order in principle. The respondent's application accordingly failed and was dismissed.