Mr Oniboken, Solicitor For the v Respondent — 2019

The claimant began proceedings on 24 September 2018 alleging, as first presented, that she had not been paid for additional work done between July 2016 and the end of April 2018. By February 2019, her solicitors said the case was not one for unlawful deduction from wages and instead advanced it as a breach of contract claim, relying on the respondent's policies and an asserted irrational exercise of discretion. The respondent argued that no contractual term had been breached and that, in any event, the Employment Tribunal had no jurisdiction because the employment contract was still extant when the claim was presented.

At the hearing, the tribunal explored whether the claimant wished to amend the claim form, noting issues of limitation and jurisdiction. After an adjournment for instructions, the claimant withdrew the claim. The tribunal therefore dismissed all claims upon withdrawal. It then heard the respondent's costs application under rule 76(1)(a), accepted that the claimant had continued the proceedings after the jurisdictional and contractual difficulties had been set out in correspondence, and found that this amounted to unreasonable conduct.

In dealing with costs, the tribunal took account of the claimant's means under rule 84. It noted take-home pay of £1,700 per month, home ownership subject to a mortgage, and two dependent children at university. Although the respondent sought £1,500 for counsel's brief, the tribunal ordered a contribution of £1,000 towards costs.