Claimant v Novaplex Business Solutions Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The claimant disobeyed a reasonable instruction to leave his laptop untouched, put it into flight mode, downloaded secure eraser software to cover his tracks, and sent an email threatening to disclose retained confidential evidence to the employer's competitor. The tribunal concluded this willful conduct amounted to gross misconduct and a repudiatory breach of contract justifying summary dismissal.
The claimant claimed unpaid pension contributions under a clause requiring the employer to pay 8% conditional upon receiving administrative documents from NEST. The tribunal found the clause was not well drafted but the claimant's claim failed, although it was not characterised as having no reasonable prospects of success.
Claim for commission totalling £26,250 was withdrawn by the claimant on the morning of the final hearing after receiving advice from counsel that it had no reasonable prospects of success.
Claim for share options totalling £11,993.93 was withdrawn by the claimant on the morning of the final hearing after receiving advice from counsel that it had no reasonable prospects of success.
Facts
The claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct after downloading at least 1,963 confidential company files and defying his employer's instruction to leave his laptop untouched. He put the laptop into flight mode, downloaded secure eraser software to cover his tracks, and sent an email threatening to disclose retained confidential evidence to the employer's competitor. He brought claims for wrongful dismissal, unpaid pension contributions, commission and share options, having less than two years' service. He was largely self-represented but had limited advice from Bindmans LLP and counsel instructed shortly before the final hearing.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed all claims at the full merits hearing on 15 October 2025. The respondent then applied for costs of £20,000 out of total costs of £25,314. The tribunal found the wrongful dismissal claim had no reasonable prospects of success given the claimant's willful misconduct, and that he acted unreasonably in continuing to pursue it despite being warned in the strike-out application. The tribunal awarded £5,000 in costs, finding this proportionate to a one-day hearing and reflecting that some costs related to claims that did not meet the unreasonableness threshold.
Practical note
Even a litigant in person with limited legal advice can face substantial costs orders if they pursue claims with no reasonable prospects of success after being explicitly warned, particularly where their own conduct clearly amounts to repudiatory breach.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6013303/2025
- Decision date
- 9 December 2025
- Hearing type
- costs
- Hearing days
- —
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- technology
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor