Cases1303336/2023

Claimant v Science Recruitment Group Limited

24 January 2025Before Employment Judge Floodremote video

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Direct Discrimination(age)failed

All age discrimination claims were dismissed. The tribunal found the claims had no reasonable prospect of success and were founded on a central piece of evidence (a conversation with Mr Harding) that was an invention and false. The claims were so weak they failed to pass the first stage of a discrimination claim.

Facts

This is a costs judgment following dismissal of all age discrimination claims on 24 January 2025. The claimant, a 71-year-old self-represented litigant, had brought claims founded on an invented conversation with a witness. He conducted proceedings unreasonably by making multiple unsubstantiated allegations of misconduct against the respondent, its representatives, judges and tribunal officers, making baseless strike-out applications, alleging document fabrication, making racist comments, and haranguing witnesses. The respondent incurred significant legal costs defending the unmeritorious claims and dealing with the claimant's conduct. The respondent had issued costs warnings in October and November 2024.

Decision

The tribunal dismissed the claimant's application for a preparation time order, finding no unreasonable conduct by the respondent. The tribunal found the claimant had acted vexatiously, abusively, disruptively and unreasonably in bringing and conducting proceedings with no reasonable prospect of success. Despite the claimant being a litigant in person, the tribunal awarded costs of £10,000 against him, taking into account his £10,000 savings and the serious nature of his conduct which required a substantial award and deterrent effect.

Practical note

Even litigants in person can face substantial costs awards where they bring claims founded on fabricated evidence and conduct proceedings vexatiously with baseless allegations, particularly where they have been warned and have experience of tribunal litigation.

Legal authorities cited

Yerrakalva v Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council [2012] ICR 420Dyer v Secretary of State for EmploymentNational Oil Well Varco v Van der Ruit UKEATS/0006/14/JWMcPherson v BNP Paribas [2004] ICR 1398Sunuva Ltd v Martin UKEAT/0174/17Kovacs v Queen Mary & Westfield College [2002] IRLR 414Jilley v Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health NHS Trust UKEAT/0584/06/DADoyle v North West London Hospitals NHS Trust [2012] All ER (D) 205Sumukan (UK) Ltd v Raghavan EAT 0087/09Gee v Shell UK Ltd [2003] IRLR 82AQ Ltd v Holden [2012] IRLR 648Barton v Wright Hassall LLP [2018] 1 WLR 1119Scott v Russell [2013] EWCA Civ 1432Attorney General v Barker [2000] 1 FLR 759

Statutes

Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 rule 73Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 rule 75Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 rule 76Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 rule 74

Case details

Case number
1303336/2023
Decision date
24 January 2025
Hearing type
costs
Hearing days
0.5
Classification
procedural

Respondent

Sector
professional services
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Claimant representation

Represented
No