A solicitor who was partially successful in her employment tribunal claim has been ordered to contribute to her opponent's costs after she was found to have ‘naïvely’ and ‘possibly foolishly’ pursued the action.
Employment judge Shepherd ordered the claimant, named as Ms S Stewart, to pay £7,000 towards Harris Solicitors Limited’s costs. It follows the dismissal of Stewart’s claim for disability discrimination and the success, by consent, of her claim for outstanding holiday pay.
Though ‘costs are still the exception rather than the rule’, the judge was ‘satisfied that it was unreasonable for the claimant to proceed with the claim, certainly to proceed to the full final hearing’.
In its application for costs, Harris Solicitors argued Stewart was ‘repeatedly and expressly warned that her claims were unmeritorious’. Stewart submitted that, although she was a qualified solicitor, she was a litigant in person and ‘neither knew, nor ought to have known at the time of filing, or during the course of the proceedings, that her case had no reasonable prospect of success’.
In a short judgment on costs, the judge said he was ‘satisfied’ Stewart’s disability discrimination claim ‘had no reasonable prospects of success’ and that she should be ordered to pay some of the firm’s costs, though he did not accept that she had acted vexatiously.
Read more
‘She continued with the claim unreasonably, naïvely and, possibly foolishly but not vexatiously,’ the judge said.
Noting that the claim for outstanding holiday pay succeeded, the judge said Stewart should pay a contribution to some, but not all, of the firm’s claimed costs.
He ordered Stewart pay £7,000, which the judge said was ‘just and equitable’.
No comments yet