Claimant v The Chief Constable of the Norfolk Constabulary
Outcome
Individual claims
Claimant alleged she was told she could not sit next to, speak to, or be consoled by her husband because they were married. Tribunal found against the claimant on all allegations after a 10-day hearing.
Claimant alleged removal of ability to work from home, removal from call handling, being told not to speak with colleagues, and being chastised about annual holiday. Tribunal found these claims unproven after hearing evidence.
Claimant alleged harassment related to menopause symptoms which she claimed amounted to disability. Tribunal found no disability and no harassment. Tribunal found a complete absence of medical evidence of debilitating menopausal symptoms.
Claimant alleged various acts of harassment including questions about vaginal odour, chastising about annual leave, preventing consolation by husband, refusing to align shifts. Tribunal found these allegations unproven after a 10-day hearing.
Facts
Mrs Dye, a call handler for Norfolk Constabulary, brought claims of discrimination and harassment related to marriage, sex, and alleged disability (menopause symptoms). She alleged she was prevented from sitting with or speaking to her husband at work, removed from call handling after failing a hearing test, pressured to stop working from home, and subjected to a cynical attitude about her menopausal symptoms. After a 10-day hearing before Employment Judge Postle, all claims failed. The Respondent applied for costs, arguing the claims had no reasonable prospects and were pursued unreasonably.
Decision
Employment Judge Warren refused the costs application. The judge found the claimant had arguable claims that did not lack reasonable prospects of success. While the claimant could be criticised for some aspects of presentation (failing to clearly plead continuing act basis, not disclosing telephone notes), this did not amount to unreasonable or vexatious conduct warranting departure from the general principle that losing parties in employment tribunals do not pay costs.
Practical note
Even where a claimant loses comprehensively after a lengthy hearing, costs will not be awarded unless the claims truly lacked reasonable prospects or were conducted unreasonably or vexatiously — arguable claims that fail on the evidence do not meet this threshold.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3310946/2023
- Decision date
- 12 June 2025
- Hearing type
- costs
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- public sector
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Call handler
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister