Claimant v Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council
Outcome
Individual claims
The claimant withdrew his claim of direct sexual orientation discrimination dated 31 August 2018 concerning Ian Grosvenor making false comments regarding the claimant's performance. The tribunal dismissed the claim upon withdrawal.
The tribunal found all claims of direct sexual orientation discrimination were not well founded. The claimant failed to provide evidence of any causal link between the alleged discriminatory behaviour and his sexual orientation. The tribunal found he had convinced himself that any treatment must be related to his sexual orientation despite having a paucity of evidence.
Claims of harassment related to sexual orientation dated 2018 were found to be out of time and it was not just and equitable to extend time. These claims were therefore dismissed as out of jurisdiction.
Claims of harassment related to sexual orientation (save those dated 2018) were not well founded. The tribunal found the claimant made serious allegations with a paucity of evidence and could not establish a prima facie case linking treatment to his protected characteristic.
All claims of victimisation were not well founded and were dismissed. The tribunal found the claimant was unreliable as a witness and had embellished evidence to suit the narrative that he believed he had been discriminated against.
Facts
This is a costs judgment following a liability hearing in which the claimant (B), an accountant employed by Dudley MBC, brought multiple claims of direct sexual orientation discrimination, harassment and victimisation. The claimant consolidated four separate claims for a final hearing. He was a litigant in person with autism spectrum disorder. He pursued his claims despite deposit orders being made on certain allegations found to have little reasonable prospect of success, and despite cost warnings from the respondent. All of his discrimination claims failed. The tribunal found serious credibility issues with the claimant's evidence, including embellishment of allegations and unreliable testimony.
Decision
The tribunal unanimously found the claimant acted unreasonably in his conduct of proceedings but not vexatiously. By majority decision, it ordered the claimant to pay costs of £10,000 to the respondent. The unreasonable conduct included: pursuing claims after deposit orders and cost warnings; including 180 documents and a 500-page table not referenced in evidence; making serious allegations with minimal supporting evidence; embellishing evidence during the hearing; and being unreliable about key factual matters. The majority concluded this unreasonable conduct was not explained by the claimant's autism diagnosis based on the limited medical evidence available. The tribunal unanimously rejected the claimant's application for a preparation time order against the respondent.
Practical note
A litigant in person with autism may still face substantial costs orders if they pursue claims after deposit orders and cost warnings, make serious unsubstantiated allegations, and embellish evidence, unless medical evidence demonstrates the unreasonable conduct is causally linked to their disability.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 1301190/2021
- Decision date
- 20 February 2025
- Hearing type
- costs
- Hearing days
- —
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Name
- Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council
- Sector
- local government
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Accountant
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No