Mr H D Williams v Written submissions Mr S Smith Solicitor Scottish Water — 2021

This judgment concerns the respondent's application for expenses dated 21 December 2020, made after an earlier Employment Tribunal decision issued on 9 December 2020. The tribunal granted the application under rule 76(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunals Rules and ordered the claimant to pay £1,000 towards the respondent's expenses.

The tribunal accepted the respondent's argument that the claimant had acted unreasonably in the way the proceedings were conducted. It rejected the proposition that the conduct was vexatious, abusive or disruptive, but held that the matter should be assessed in the round under the principles in McPherson v BNP Paribas and Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council v Yerrakalva. On the no reasonable prospects ground, the tribunal held that it could not say the claimant knew or ought to have known that point before the evidence was heard, particularly where issues such as the comparison with Mr Black, holiday pay and bonus pay were not clear from the documents alone.

The tribunal's unreasonableness finding rested on a number of issues raised by the claimant that it regarded as lacking substance and which required the respondent to spend time and expense addressing. These included allegations about historic grievances, a conspiracy involving managers, the use of telematics data and an asserted DPA breach, intimidation in the disciplinary process, Mr Beardmore's independence, mental health, the accuracy of meeting minutes, and the suggestion that overtime not claimed should be offset. In assessing quantum, the tribunal noted the respondent's demand for £30,000, but took account of the claimant's means, including his age, unemployment since dismissal, industrial injuries benefit of £36.40 per week, savings of £505, and the absence of vouching of any future inability to work, and fixed the award at £1,000.