Paul Smith (Counsel) For the v Respondent — 2025

At a hearing on 16 January 2025, Employment Judge K J Palmer sitting alone considered the respondent's application for a costs order against the claimant. The claimant had presented a home-made ET1 on 11 May 2023 alleging constructive unfair dismissal and a protected disclosure claim, saying that disclosures made to the board about other directors had been ignored and that she resigned in reliance on that. The respondent contended that the claim had not been sufficiently particularised, that the claimant had failed to engage properly with requests for further and better particulars, and that her later withdrawal justified a costs order.

The tribunal refused the application. It held that the claimant was entitled to bring a home-made claim and that any lack of particularity in the ET1 was not enough, of itself, to satisfy the Rule 74 threshold. The respondent's detailed request for particulars had not been backed by a tribunal order at the relevant time, and the claimant had later tried to respond to the tribunal's own October 2023 orders, including orders about particulars and a schedule of loss. The tribunal accepted that she had relied on advice from ACAS and tribunal administration, and that her failure to answer the respondent's request in the form sought was not unreasonable.

Applying the approach in Radia and McPherson, and noting the general guidance in Yerrakalva and Bhardwaj, the tribunal looked at the claimant's conduct overall rather than only the fact of withdrawal. It accepted that she withdrew the claim on 7 January 2024 before the case management discussion, without legal advice, and against a background of bereavements and concern about mitigation. The tribunal concluded that her conduct, taken as a whole, was not vexatious, abusive or otherwise unreasonable, so the respondent's costs application failed.