Claimant v Secretary of State for Justice
Outcome
Individual claims
Allegation 5 was considered on its merits and the Tribunal found the claim was not well-founded. The claimant failed to establish a prima facie case of race discrimination. Allegations 1-4 were dismissed as out of time and it was not just and equitable to extend the time limit. In the alternative, these allegations also failed on their merits.
Facts
This is a costs judgment following dismissal of the claimant's race discrimination claim on 8 November 2024. The claim involved five allegations of race discrimination, four of which were dismissed as out of time with no extension granted. The fifth allegation failed on its merits. The claimant left the hearing before judgment was fully announced. The respondent applied for costs under Rule 76(1) arguing the claimant acted unreasonably in bringing proceedings.
Decision
The Tribunal dismissed the respondent's costs application. The respondent failed to provide proper particulars of why bringing the claim was unreasonable conduct. Simply losing a claim does not automatically mean it was unreasonable to bring it. The Tribunal noted some evidential matters (Ms Bennett's grievance) had been found discriminatory by the respondent's own investigation, showing the claim was not entirely baseless.
Practical note
A costs application based on unreasonable conduct requires detailed particulars of what was unreasonable and why - the mere fact a claimant lost their discrimination claim is insufficient to establish unreasonableness.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2210741/2023
- Decision date
- 29 November 2025
- Hearing type
- costs
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- central government
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No