Case 6021729/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Edward Walker v Peninsula Business Services Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6021729/2025
- Decision date
- 10 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Corrigan Representation
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedMr Edward Walker
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningSitting at London South by video on 10 July 2025, Employment Judge Corrigan dealt by paper with the respondent's application for costs in respect of the claimant's earlier interim relief application. The claimant had not made representations despite further opportunity to object and to provide details of his means.
The tribunal accepted that the claimant had some relevant employment law experience. It found that, at the latest by 7 July 2025 when the claimant received the dismissing manager's witness statement, it should have been apparent that the interim relief application was futile because there was no evidence the dismissing manager knew of the protected disclosures. Continuing the application from that point was unreasonable.
Applying rule 74 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure, and balancing the principle that costs are compensatory rather than punitive against the claimant's loss of income on summary dismissal and the overlap with work needed for the substantive case, the judge ordered the claimant to pay £535.80 (representing the solicitor's attendance fee plus VAT) as a contribution towards the respondent's costs.
Claims and outcomes
1 claim adjudicated| Claim type | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 referenceSource document
Primary recordThe full judgment is available on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.