Members: Peter Kelman Paula McColl v Represented by: Ms L Bain - Solicitor X Glasgow City Council — 2018

This judgment concerns the respondents' application for expenses after the Tribunal's earlier merits judgment of 31 May 2017 had dismissed the claimant's whistleblowing detriment complaint, his automatic unfair dismissal complaint based on protected disclosure, and his unfair/constructive dismissal complaint. The respondents sought an award of expenses on the basis that the proceedings had been brought and continued vexatiously or otherwise unreasonably and/or had no reasonable prospect of success, with a schedule said to total over £161,000, or alternatively specified smaller sums for particular items.

Applying rule 76 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 and referring to ET Marler Ltd v Robertson, Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council v Yerrakalva and McPherson v BNP Paribas (London Branch), the Tribunal held that the claimant had made protected disclosures about child protection and management practices and that those concerns were serious. It found that he was not acting out of spite or some improper motive and was not pursuing the claims to harass the respondents. Although it found that he had a tendency to exaggerate and to misinterpret events, the Tribunal did not find that this was deliberate or sufficiently serious to justify an expenses award.

The Tribunal also considered rule 84 and the claimant's ability to pay. After disclosure of tax returns and bank statements, and further evidence about his finances, the Tribunal found his financial position to be complicated, accepted that he was in rent arrears, and was not persuaded that he had any undisclosed income or assets or the ability to pay an expenses award. The respondents' application for expenses was therefore refused.