Mr David Hosier v Tape Specialities Ltd — 2023

This judgment concerns the respondent’s application for costs after the claimant withdrew his claim during the hearing on 21 October 2022, after his own evidence and before the respondent called evidence. The respondent applied under rule 76(1)(a) and rule 76(1)(b) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, relying on the claimant’s conduct and on the contention that the claim had no reasonable prospects of success.

Employment Judge Forde found that the claim was entirely misconceived. On the judge’s observations at hearing, the claimant was either unable to support his case by oral evidence or was evasive to the point that he did not do so. The judgment records a substantial disconnect between the claimant’s written claim and witness evidence and the oral evidence given in cross-examination. The judge also found it surprising that the claimant could not articulate any meaningful detail of the duties he said he performed for the respondent, despite his case being that he remained an employee and had a viable unlawful deductions claim under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

The tribunal held that the claimant’s conduct in bringing the proceedings was unreasonable within rule 76(1)(a). In the alternative, it held that the claim had no reasonable prospects of success under rule 76(1)(b), and that it was appropriate to exercise the discretion to make a costs order against the claimant. The tribunal did not determine the amount of costs in this judgment; it directed a further hearing because the sum sought was substantial and required scrutiny.