Claimant v B&M Retail Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
This is a costs judgment following refusal of an amendment application. The original ordinary unfair dismissal claim remains listed for final hearing on 21-22 October 2025 and has not yet been determined on its merits.
Claimant's application to amend the claim to add automatic unfair dismissal based on whistleblowing was refused at preliminary hearing on 19 May 2025. Tribunal found it highly unlikely that a tribunal would find it was not reasonably practicable for the claim to have been brought in time, as claimant failed to read the original draft claim form and did not notice the omission for 15 months.
The claimant's application to add a public interest disclosure claim was refused at preliminary hearing. Union solicitors had advised prior to the original claim being filed that the whistleblowing complaint did not have reasonable prospects of success. The tribunal found the amendment application was brought out of time and highly unlikely to succeed on reasonable practicability grounds.
Facts
The claimant, a Bulgarian national with limited English, was dismissed by B&M Retail. His union solicitors filed an ordinary unfair dismissal claim on 25 September 2023, having advised that his proposed whistleblowing claim had no reasonable prospects. The claimant did not read the draft claim form before submission. 15 months later, in February 2025, after his union ceased acting, he realised the whistleblowing claim had been omitted and applied to amend. Despite warnings from the tribunal and respondent about serious difficulties with the application and potential costs consequences, he proceeded. The amendment application was refused at a preliminary hearing on 19 May 2025, causing the imminent final hearing to be postponed. The respondent applied for costs of £9,342.55.
Decision
The tribunal refused the respondent's costs application despite finding the claimant's conduct unreasonable in pursuing the amendment application after clear warnings. The judge exercised discretion against awarding costs because the claimant was unrepresented, not familiar with the English legal system, had language difficulties requiring an interpreter, held a strong subjective belief in his whistleblowing claim, and had no ability to pay any award (being subject to a Debt Relief Order with no discernible assets and supporting his family on earnings supplemented by universal credit).
Practical note
Even where unreasonable conduct is established, tribunals will exercise discretion against awarding costs where a litigant in person with language barriers and no assets genuinely believed in their case, particularly where costs are the exception not the rule and lay people should not be judged by professional standards.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2409537/2023
- Decision date
- 6 October 2025
- Hearing type
- costs
- Hearing days
- —
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- retail
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No