Mr A S Soor v ABM Aviation UK Limited — 2024

This was a costs hearing following the earlier dismissal of the claimant's substantive claims. The claimant had originally complained of unfair dismissal, redundancy pay, notice pay and unpaid wages against ABM Aviation UK Ltd, which denied that he had ever been employed by it. The unfair dismissal claim was withdrawn by the claimant's second representative on 23 October 2023 for want of qualifying service. The remaining claims were dismissed after the claimant failed to comply with an unless order requiring disclosure of the original native digital format of emails said to have been sent by the respondent's senior HR director. The respondent's position throughout was that the payslips and emails relied on by the claimant were forgeries.

On the costs application made under rule 74 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024, Employment Judge George proceeded in the claimant's absence under rule 47, being satisfied that proper notice had been given. The judge was satisfied, on the respondent's detailed and unanswered arguments, that the probable explanation for the claimant's non-engagement was that he had never been employed by the respondent and that the documents relied on were not genuine. The judge held that this amounted to vexatious and unreasonable conduct in bringing and conducting the proceedings within rule 74(2)(a), the untruth being the foundation of the entire claim.

The judge declined to take the claimant's means into account because the claimant had been given the opportunity to provide a schedule of income and outgoings and had not done so. The costs schedule was found to be reasonable. The claimant was ordered to pay the respondent £4,293 (VAT exclusive) in respect of its legal costs.