Ms M Woods v Allianz Management Services Limited — 2025

This judgment concerned only the respondent's application for costs after the claimant had withdrawn her ET1 claims. Ms Woods had originally brought constructive unfair dismissal, indirect age discrimination by association and indirect disability discrimination by association claims, and she emailed the Tribunal on 3 September 2024 saying she was no longer pursuing the case. A withdrawal judgment was issued on 5 November 2024. The respondent then sought £20,000 in costs under rule 74, relying on alleged unreasonable conduct and/or no reasonable prospect of success.

Employment Judge Hutchings refused the application. He found that the claimant, who was unrepresented and had almost 15.5 years' service, genuinely believed her case had merit and had raised the issues internally before bringing proceedings. She took legal advice after the respondent offered £500 towards advice, and the advice she received did not support the respondent's view that the claim lacked merit. In those circumstances, continuing with the claim, not withdrawing before the ET3 and grounds of resistance were served, and later withdrawing because of her mother's ill-health and her own mental health decline was not unreasonable.

The judge also held that the respondent had not shown that the claim had no reasonable prospect of success on the material then before him. He considered the respondent's assessment to be premature, particularly because a litigant in person had not yet had the opportunity to explain the complaints at case management. He accepted that the disability discrimination by association point looked weak on the papers, but not so clearly hopeless as to justify costs. He also found that the claimant's failure to comply with the case management orders was not unreasonable, because the written orders were sent after the compliance dates and she later gave an explanation consistent with the hearing evidence. Even if the rule 74 threshold had been met, he said he would not have exercised discretion to award costs.