Automated Summary
Key Facts
The claimants Ms Barnes and Ms Taylor withdrew their Employment Tribunal claims against Arcis Biotechnology Limited and Holdings Limited before preliminary hearings. Barnes claimed unpaid wages and holiday pay after an eight-year employment, while Taylor alleged unfair dismissal, sex discrimination, whistleblowing, and unpaid leave following nearly ten years of employment. The Tribunal refused respondents' applications for costs orders and wasted costs orders, finding the claims had reasonable prospects of success and were withdrawn at an early stage without unreasonable conduct.
Issues
- Whether the respondents can obtain a wasted costs order under Rule 80 against the claimants' solicitors, who withdrew the claims early, and the respondents contended that the solicitors acted unreasonably or negligently in proceeding with the claims.
- Whether the respondents are entitled to a costs order under Rule 76(1)(a) and (b) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure, as the claimants' solicitors withdrew the claims before the preliminary hearing, and the respondents argued the claims were hopeless or brought for improper motives.
Holdings
- The Tribunal refused the respondents' applications for costs orders against Ms Barnes and Ms Taylor, determining that their claims had a reasonable prospect of success and were withdrawn at an early stage without vexatious or unreasonable conduct. The respondents did not demonstrate that the claims were hopeless or brought for improper motives, and the Tribunal emphasized that employment tribunals generally do not award costs unless there is clear unreasonable conduct by a party.
- The Tribunal also refused the respondents' applications for wasted costs orders against the claimants' solicitors, finding no evidence of improper, unreasonable, or negligent actions. The claims were withdrawn before significant costs were incurred, and the solicitors' conduct was deemed neither vexatious nor disruptive. The Tribunal highlighted the principle that costs awards are rare in employment tribunals, especially for early-stage withdrawals.
Remedies
- The respondents' applications for costs orders are refused; the claims were withdrawn at an early stage and no award has been made.
- The respondents' applications for wasted costs orders are refused; no improper, unreasonable, or negligent conduct by claimants' representatives was demonstrated.
Legal Principles
The Employment Tribunal applied costs principles under Rules 76, 78, 80, and 84 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure, emphasizing that costs are exceptions not the rule. The Tribunal considered whether claims had no reasonable prospect of success or were vexatious, and noted the discretion to assess costs based on the whole picture of conduct and parties' ability to pay, as outlined in the Presidential Guidance and supported by case law (Yerrakalva v Barnsley MBC).
Precedent Name
Yerrakalva v Barnsley MBC
Judge Name
Phil Allen
Passage Text
- If what the claimant had asserted in the claim form had been supported by evidence, her claims would have had a reasonable prospect of success. The claim for accrued but untaken annual leave certainly had a reasonable prospect of success.
- The claim for accrued but untaken annual leave, in particular, appears to have had reasonable prospects of succeeding in circumstances where accrued but untaken annual leave was not paid (or at least where what would appear to be such accrued leave, was not paid).
- The basic principle is that employment tribunals do not order one party to pay the costs which the other party has incurred in bringing or defending a claim.