Case 6036974/2025 · Employment Tribunal

Abigail Fox v Oni Agency Limited Decided at: London South — 2026

Case reference: 6036974/2025
Decision date: 13 July 2026
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Sudra JUDGMENT

Indexed: 26 July 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Abigail Fox

Respondent

Oni Agency Limited Decided at: London South

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

Abigail Fox presented her claim on 7 October 2025 and withdrew it on 19 October 2025, 12 days after presentation. The judgment does not state the legal basis of the underlying claim. It records that the claim was subsequently dismissed upon withdrawal.

Oni Agency Limited applied for costs, contending that the claim was bound to fail, as evidenced by its withdrawal, and alleging unreasonable and vexatious conduct. Employment Judge Sudra was not satisfied that withdrawal 12 days after presentation amounted to unreasonable conduct and found that the threshold for a costs order had not been met. The respondent's costs application was refused, so the tribunal did not determine whether an order should be made, its amount, or whether to extend time for the application. No monetary award was made.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

This case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Other	The judgment does not identify the legal basis of the underlying claim. It records that the claimant withdrew it on 19 October 2025 and that it was dismissed upon withdrawal.	Withdrawn	—	—
Other	The respondent's application for a costs order under Rule 76 was refused.	Dismissed	—	—

Legal tests applied

2 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

Published 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.

Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.