Claimant v Royal United Bath NHS Foundation Trust
Outcome
Individual claims
This judgment concerned only the respondent's application for costs following dismissal of the claimant's interim relief application. The underlying whistleblowing claim itself has not yet been determined by the tribunal - it remains pending for final hearing.
Facts
The claimant brought a whistleblowing claim after being dismissed allegedly for gross misconduct shortly after making protected disclosures. He applied for interim relief under s.128 ERA 1996 within the required 7-day timescale. His interim relief application was dismissed on 16.07.2025. The respondent then applied for costs of £8,212.50, arguing the interim relief application was vexatious/unreasonable and had no reasonable prospect of success.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed the respondent's costs application. The judge found that while the claimant's interim relief application was 'optimistic', it was not vexatious, abusive, disruptive or unreasonable. It had a legal basis, was brought within a tight statutory timescale by an unrepresented party, and the claimant was entitled to make the application. Costs are the exception in employment tribunals and unrepresented parties should be judged less harshly.
Practical note
An unsuccessful interim relief application by an unrepresented claimant will not automatically attract costs, even where prospects were assessed as weak, provided the application had a proper legal basis and was brought in good faith within the statutory timescale.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 1401592/2025
- Decision date
- 16 July 2025
- Hearing type
- costs
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- healthcare
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No