Claimant v Ingeteam UK Ltd — 2018

The judgment concerned the respondent's application for expenses after the claimant had withdrawn his ET claim, which had been brought as automatic unfair dismissal under TUPE and unfair dismissal and then dismissed under Rule 52. The respondent sought £1,909, contending that the claimant had no qualifying service and that the claim had no reasonable prospect of success.

The tribunal accepted that the claimant did not have the necessary qualifying service, so it could not determine the underlying claim on the merits. However, it was not satisfied that the claimant had acted vexatiously, abusively, disruptively or otherwise unreasonably in bringing or conducting the proceedings. The judge found that he had taken legal advice before presenting the claim and that, once the jurisdictional difficulty was identified, he withdrew promptly.

Although the tribunal held that the claim had no reasonable prospect of success, it treated expenses as discretionary and noted that they are exceptional in the Employment Tribunal. It also observed that the respondent could have reduced its own costs by contacting the claimant's solicitor earlier or by lodging a holding response. For those reasons, the application for expenses was refused.