Claimant v Plan With Grace Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The claimant brought a claim for constructive unfair dismissal in a home-made ET1 alleging breaches of contract. The claim was withdrawn by the claimant on 7 January 2024 without legal advice, partly due to bereavement and stress, and was dismissed under Rule 52 by a legal officer.
The claimant ticked the protected disclosure box and referred to disclosures made to the Board about activities of other Directors that were ignored, suggesting a claim under s.103A Employment Rights Act 1996. This claim was withdrawn along with the constructive dismissal claim on 7 January 2024.
Facts
The claimant was a Director of the respondent funeral planning company from April 2017 to March 2023, having sold her own 100% shareholding to the respondent in September 2022. She brought an unrepresented, home-made claim for constructive dismissal and whistleblowing, alleging breaches of contract and ignored disclosures about other Directors' activities. The respondent filed detailed grounds of resistance and requested extensive further particulars. The claimant, advised by ACAS and the tribunal to await orders, did not respond to the respondent's request but attempted to comply with Judge Tynan's orders. The claimant withdrew her claim on 7 January 2024 without legal advice, shortly after a family bereavement. The respondent applied for costs, which was heard on 16 January 2025.
Decision
Employment Judge Palmer refused the respondent's costs application under Rule 74. The judge found that the claimant's conduct throughout the proceedings, including bringing the claim, failing to provide particulars as requested by the respondent (but not ordered by the tribunal), and withdrawing the claim, did not meet the threshold of vexatious, abusive or unreasonable conduct. The claimant was exercising her legal right to bring a claim, was entitled to rely on advice from ACAS and the tribunal, and had understandable reasons for withdrawal including bereavement and stress.
Practical note
An unrepresented claimant who brings a claim in good faith, relies on advice from ACAS or tribunal staff, and withdraws due to personal circumstances will not face a costs order for unreasonable conduct, even if particulars are inadequate and the respondent incurs costs.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3305269/2023
- Decision date
- 7 March 2025
- Hearing type
- costs
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- financial services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Director
- Service
- 6 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister