Claimant v Listers Group Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The Claimant was unsuccessful because she did not present sufficient direct evidence in respect of the facts she relied upon. The tribunal found she presented insufficient evidence to prove her claims, though no findings were made that she was untruthful.
The Claimant was unsuccessful because she did not present sufficient direct evidence to support her claim. Her presentation lacked evidential aspects, reflecting her limited legal skills as a litigant in person rather than deliberate conduct.
The tribunal dismissed the claim due to insufficient evidence presented by the Claimant. While the Claimant acted in good faith with a genuine belief she had been victimised, she failed to provide adequate evidence to prove the claim.
The Claimant was unsuccessful in proving constructive unfair dismissal. The tribunal found she did not present sufficient evidence to establish her case, though she held a genuine belief that she had been unfairly dismissed.
Facts
The Claimant brought claims of harassment, direct sex discrimination, victimisation and constructive unfair dismissal which were dismissed following a four-day hearing in June 2024. The Respondent subsequently applied for costs on the basis that the Claimant's conduct was improper or unreasonable, arguing her claims were hopeless and that she effectively abandoned her case through concessions in cross-examination. The Claimant was unrepresented throughout and maintained she acted on legal advice and genuine belief in her claims.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed the Respondent's costs application. The application under rule 78 was dismissed because wasted costs orders can only be made against representatives, not unrepresented litigants. The tribunal further held that even under rule 76, no costs would be awarded as the Claimant acted in good faith with genuine belief in her claims, and her lack of evidential presentation reflected limited legal skills rather than unreasonable conduct.
Practical note
Tribunals will protect unrepresented litigants from costs orders where they acted in good faith with genuine belief in their claims, even if unsuccessful, and will not penalise truthful concessions in cross-examination as abandonment of the case.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 1303708/2023
- Decision date
- 28 April 2025
- Hearing type
- costs
- Hearing days
- 4
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- retail
- Represented
- Yes
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No