Claimant v Paragon Asra Housing Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The claim was dismissed at the full merits hearing on 9 August 2024. The tribunal found that the claimant was fairly dismissed following allegations of theft and gross misconduct.
The tribunal dismissed the age discrimination claim at the final hearing. The claimant alleged the respondent pursued false allegations because of her age but provided little evidence to support this claim beyond her assertion.
The claim had no reasonable prospect of success. The alleged protected act (November 2021 grievance) contained no reference to protected characteristics or the Equality Act. The alleged detriment (Tree Close property withdrawal on 21 March 2022) occurred before the only actual protected act (filing the ET1 on 30 March 2022), making it impossible for the detriment to be because of the protected act.
Facts
This is a costs application judgment following a full merits hearing in August 2024 where all the claimant's claims (unfair dismissal, age discrimination, victimisation) were dismissed. The claimant had been dismissed for alleged theft and gross misconduct and also lost her home as a consequence. The respondent sought costs of £22,586.28 arguing the claimant acted unreasonably by misleading the tribunal about having seen the respondent's witness statements before preparing her own, and that the victimisation claim had no reasonable prospect of success. The claimant was unrepresented, had monthly income of just over £1,500, no savings, and was homeless and reliant on council accommodation.
Decision
The tribunal found the costs jurisdiction was engaged under Rule 74(2)(a) (unreasonable conduct) and Rule 74(2)(b) (no reasonable prospects for victimisation claim), but declined to exercise its discretion to award costs. The tribunal considered the claimant's very limited financial means, the fact that even a token payment would be a significant burden while contributing little to the sum sought, and the exceptional circumstances that the claimant had lost both her job and her home as a result of the dismissal.
Practical note
Even where the tribunal finds unreasonable conduct or that claims had no reasonable prospect of success, it retains discretion to refuse a costs order where the paying party has very limited means and the circumstances are exceptional, applying the overriding objective of dealing with cases fairly and justly.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2301121/2022
- Decision date
- 9 August 2024
- Hearing type
- costs
- Hearing days
- —
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- public sector
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No