Mr S Baig v Harneys Westood Reigels LLP — 2022

The claimant, Mr S Baig, worked as a Data Protection Officer for Harneys Westood Reigels LLP from 23 March 2020 until his dismissal on 30 November 2020. He presented an ET1 alleging unfair dismissal and said that he had been dismissed while raising data-protection compliance concerns. The tribunal recorded that he had less than two years' service and that he had also advanced arguments based on GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018, although the employment tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear those statutory data-protection claims.

After a strike-out warning referring to section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996, the claimant maintained that the matter should be considered under the overriding objective and later told the tribunal that he wished to withdraw the case because he was reporting the matter to the Information Commissioner's Office. The respondent applied for costs under Rules 76 and 78 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, relying on the claimant's lack of qualifying service, the tribunal's warning letter, and a separate costs warning letter dated 13 May 2021.

The judge accepted that the claim, as presented, was misconceived and that the claimant had acted unreasonably by inertia after receiving the tribunal's warning and the respondent's letter. However, applying the three-stage approach in Millan v Capsticks Solicitors LLP & Others, the tribunal held that it was not appropriate to make a costs order. The judge considered that the claim on its face was likely capable of amendment to a whistleblowing claim, that the claimant's withdrawal spared the respondent further costs, and that the sums sought were excessive for a case that had not reached a preliminary hearing. The respondent's application for costs was therefore refused.