Claimant v The Character Group PLC
Outcome
Individual claims
This was a costs hearing following a substantive liability hearing. The underlying unfair dismissal claim was addressed in the earlier judgment but the outcome is not specified in this costs judgment.
The tribunal concluded that the claimant knew or ought to have reasonably known he did not have a subjective belief that his disclosure was in the public interest, and that the whistleblowing claim had no reasonable prospect of success. The tribunal found the claimant only believed he was raising a 'technical' breach and did not assert whistleblowing until after dismissal.
The tribunal concluded in its liability judgment that none of the detriments relied upon by the claimant had occurred. The tribunal found no causal link between the alleged protected disclosure and any detriments.
Facts
This was a costs hearing following a liability judgment in which the claimant, a former Group Financial Director, lost his whistleblowing and detriment claims. The respondent sought costs of £127,563.70 (21% of overall costs of £600,000) on the basis the claimant pursued a whistleblowing claim with no reasonable prospect of success and conducted proceedings unreasonably by giving dishonest evidence and making serious allegations of fabrication. The claimant had rejected settlement offers of £200,000 and £55,000, and submitted escalating schedules of loss culminating in a claim for £1.464m plus uplift.
Decision
The tribunal awarded costs against the claimant of £127,563.70 for the liability hearing (subject to detailed assessment) plus £20,000 for the costs hearing itself. The tribunal found the whistleblowing claim had no reasonable prospect of success as the claimant knew or ought to have known he did not have a subjective belief the disclosure was in the public interest. The claimant's conduct was unreasonable including giving dishonest evidence and making serious unfounded allegations against the respondent's witnesses. The claimant's own costs application was rejected as having no merit.
Practical note
Pursuing a whistleblowing claim without a genuine subjective belief in the public interest, giving dishonest evidence, and unreasonably rejecting substantial settlement offers can lead to significant adverse costs orders even where the paying party has limited means.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2303676/2017
- Decision date
- 7 February 2025
- Hearing type
- costs
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- retail
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Group Financial Director
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No