Report comment

I simply don't understand how the tribunal can award costs against you if the case has not been proved.

I could understand it if the costs order related to conduct during the tribunal process itself. That would be analogous to a costs order against a successful party in litigation.

However, I have never heard of a costs order against a successful party in litigation simply on the basis that the merits of the case were finely balanced or that e.g. the Defendant lost on breach of duty (and hence was "at fault") but the Claimant couldn't prove causation.