Claimant v Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
Outcome
Individual claims
The claim related to the requirement to use contractual sick pay when shielding during COVID-19. The Tribunal found the claim fundamentally misconceived as the claimant had no entitlement to shielding pay during periods when the shielding programme was paused.
The claim related to the requirement to use contractual sick pay when shielding during COVID-19. The Tribunal found the claim fundamentally misconceived as the claimant had no entitlement to shielding pay during periods when the shielding programme was paused.
The claim related to the requirement to use contractual sick pay when shielding during COVID-19. The Tribunal found the claim fundamentally misconceived as the claimant had no entitlement to shielding pay during periods when the shielding programme was paused.
The claim related to the requirement to use contractual sick pay when shielding during COVID-19. The Tribunal found the claim fundamentally misconceived as the claimant had no entitlement to shielding pay during periods when the shielding programme was paused.
The claim related to the requirement to use contractual sick pay when shielding during August 2020 to April 2022 (except March-April 2021). The Tribunal found the claim fundamentally misconceived and that the claimant had an unjustified sense of grievance as she had no entitlement to shielding pay during these periods.
Facts
The claimant pursued claims of age, race, and disability discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, and unauthorised deduction of wages after being required to use contractual sick pay while shielding during COVID-19 from August 2020 to April 2022. The claims were dismissed in July 2024 as fundamentally misconceived. The respondent then applied for costs of up to £20,000, arguing the claimant had acted unreasonably and pursued claims with no reasonable prospects of success despite a costs warning in February 2023.
Decision
The Tribunal found that the threshold for awarding costs was met under Rule 74(2)(a) and (b) - the claimant had acted unreasonably and pursued claims with no reasonable prospect of success. However, the Tribunal exercised its discretion not to award costs due to the claimant's inability to pay. The claimant was in receipt of Universal Credit of approximately £1,556 per month with no savings, mounting debts, and no evidence her financial position would improve.
Practical note
Even where the threshold for a costs order is clearly met due to unreasonable conduct and lack of merit, tribunals retain discretion to refuse costs applications where the paying party has no realistic ability to pay and enforcement would serve no practical compensatory purpose.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2201912/2022
- Decision date
- 9 July 2024
- Hearing type
- costs
- Hearing days
- —
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- healthcare
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No