Claimant v Boneham & Turner Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
Claimant withdrew the claim on 6 January 2025 after failing to attend the preliminary hearing. The respondent had noted the claimant had insufficient service to bring an unfair dismissal claim, and the claimant accepted the case did not meet the legal test due to his length of service.
Claimant withdrew this claim on 6 January 2025. The tribunal had previously noted that the actual comparator relied on was inappropriate as they were of a similar age to the claimant, and the claim remained largely unparticularised.
Claimant withdrew this claim on 6 January 2025. The claim remained unparticularised, the respondent did not concede disability status, the claimant conceded he did not raise his alleged disability with the employer, and no medical evidence was provided to support the claim.
Claimant withdrew this claim on 6 January 2025. The claim remained largely unparticularised despite multiple directions and requests for further and better particulars from both the tribunal and the respondent.
Claimant withdrew this claim on 6 January 2025. The basis of the claim appeared to be that the claimant was subjected to a detriment because termination with payment in lieu of notice deprived him of the ability to accrue additional annual leave.
Claimant withdrew this claim on 6 January 2025. A judge had previously commented that the whistleblowing claim appeared to be 'pretty hopeless on the face of it' and concerns were expressed about prospects of success. An alleged protected disclosure was said to have been made on 15 November 2023.
Facts
The claimant brought multiple claims including unfair dismissal, various discrimination claims, whistleblowing, and holiday pay after approximately 8 months' employment as a sales administrator. The claims were poorly particularised despite multiple tribunal directions and requests from the respondent. A two-day preliminary hearing was listed for 6-7 January 2025 to determine disability status and applications for strike-out/deposit orders. Neither the claimant nor his lay representative attended the hearing. Later that day, the representative emailed to withdraw the claim, claiming illness and a mistake about the hearing date.
Decision
The tribunal found the claimant decided to withdraw the claim before the hearing but failed to notify the tribunal or respondent. This was unreasonable conduct justifying a costs order. The tribunal awarded costs of £3,519.30 covering the respondent's reasonable preparation costs for the aborted preliminary hearing, including counsel's brief fee of £2,250 and expenses of £249.30 (excluding VAT), plus assessed solicitor costs of £1,020.
Practical note
Parties who decide to withdraw claims must promptly notify the tribunal and respondent — failing to do so before a scheduled hearing will likely result in a costs order for the wasted preparation expenses, even where the party is unrepresented or represented by a lay representative.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2600579/2024
- Decision date
- 31 July 2025
- Hearing type
- costs
- Hearing days
- —
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- other
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- sales administrator
- Service
- 8 months
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep