Claimant v University and College Union
Outcome
Individual claims
The Tribunal found in the liability judgment dated 31 January 2025 that the Respondent trade union had never discounted the possibility of the Claimant being the victim of race discrimination by her employer, gave her reasonable advice in the circumstances, never gave her the impression it disbelieved her, and provided appropriate assistance. The Claimant had no reasonable grounds for a suspicion of discrimination.
The Tribunal dismissed the harassment claim in the liability judgment dated 31 January 2025. The Tribunal found the Respondent provided reasonable assistance with her claims against her employer, gave entirely correct advice, and the Claimant could never have reasonably thought the Respondent's conduct constituted harassment.
The Tribunal dismissed the victimisation claim in the liability judgment dated 31 January 2025. The Tribunal found the Respondent had acted appropriately throughout, including asking the Claimant to send subject access requests herself as her requests were becoming too onerous, and gave correct advice about not providing advice if she was receiving separate legal advice from another source.
Facts
The Claimant, a member of the Respondent trade union, brought race discrimination, harassment and victimisation claims against the union under s.57 Equality Act 2010. All claims were dismissed by judgment dated 31 January 2025. The Tribunal found the union had given her reasonable and correct legal advice about potential claims against her employer (Burnley College), had never disbelieved her allegations of discrimination by her employer, and had provided appropriate assistance including with subject access requests. The Claimant failed to attend two days of her own hearing without good excuse, and persisted with her claims despite three costs warning letters and following disclosure which revealed no evidence supporting her allegations. She appealed to the EAT which found no reasonable grounds for appeal under Rule 3(7).
Decision
The Tribunal awarded costs of £19,000 against the Claimant. It found the claim had no reasonable prospect of success from late September 2024 following disclosure, meeting the threshold under Rule 74(2)(b). The Claimant's failure to attend two days of the hearing was unreasonable conduct under Rule 74(2)(a). The Tribunal exercised its discretion to award costs despite her litigant in person status, considering she had legal qualifications, had been warned three times, had a fixed mindset refusing to countenance lack of discrimination, and had conducted herself unreasonably post-hearing including making threats. The Tribunal assessed costs under Rule 76(1)(a) using a broad brush approach, excluding pre-disclosure costs and some disclosure costs.
Practical note
Even unrepresented discrimination claimants with legal qualifications can face substantial costs orders where they persist with claims lacking any evidential basis after disclosure, ignore multiple costs warnings offering drop hands settlements, and fail to attend their own hearings without good reason.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2404995/2022
- Decision date
- 31 January 2025
- Hearing type
- costs
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- other
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No