Claimant v Allianz Management Services Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
Claimant withdrew her claim on 3 September 2024, two days before the scheduled preliminary hearing, citing her mother's serious health issues and her own mental health decline. The claim did not proceed to a final determination on its merits.
Claimant alleged indirect age discrimination by association (s19A Equality Act 2010) relating to her parents being in their 80s. Claim was brought out of time (which claimant conceded). Withdrawn by claimant before preliminary hearing could determine time limits or merits.
Claimant alleged indirect disability discrimination by association (s19A Equality Act 2010) relating to her parents' disabilities. Claim was brought out of time (which claimant conceded). Judge found the claim faced significant evidential hurdles but could not conclude it had no reasonable prospect of success without proper case management. Withdrawn by claimant.
Facts
Claimant worked for respondent general insurance company for over 15 years as Deputy Team Leader. She resigned and brought claims of constructive dismissal and indirect age and disability discrimination by association relating to her parents' circumstances. The claims were brought out of time (which claimant conceded). Respondent made strike-out/deposit order application and engaged in settlement correspondence with costs warnings. Claimant withdrew her claim two days before preliminary hearing, citing her mother's serious health issues and her own mental health decline. Respondent applied for costs of £20,000.
Decision
Judge Hutchings refused the costs application. The judge found the claimant did not act unreasonably in bringing or pursuing her claim as an unrepresented party with lengthy service who genuinely felt aggrieved. The respondent's approach was premature and heavy-handed. The judge could not conclude the claims had no reasonable prospect of success without proper case management to clarify the unrepresented claimant's case. Withdrawal was reasonable in the circumstances.
Practical note
Costs applications against unrepresented claimants face a high bar: tribunals must judge lay people by different standards than professionals, and premature strike-out applications with aggressive costs warnings before proper case management do not assist a costs application.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3311645/2023
- Decision date
- 20 August 2025
- Hearing type
- costs
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- financial services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Deputy Team Leader
- Service
- 16 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No