Chief Constable of Leicestershire Police

Case Summary

The Respondent’s application for costs was dismissed, as the claim had no reasonable prospects of success.

The respondent's application for costs was dismissed because the tribunal found the claim had no reasonable prospect of success at a preliminary stage.

• •no reasonable prospect of success

1 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mr E Haynes Respondent: Chief Constable of Leicestershire Police Heard: In chambers on written representations On: Monday, 16 September 2024 Before: Employment Judge Clark (sitting alone) JUDGMENT 1. The Respondent’s application for costs fails and is dismissed. REASONS 1 Background 1.1 On 18 April 2024, my judgment with reasons dismissed the claimant’s claim of constructive unfair dismissal following an attended hearing at Leicester between 26 February and 1 March 2024. 1.2 On 11 May 2024, the respondent applied for a costs order and submitted a schedule of costs amounting to £19,022. The application is based on a contention that the claim had no reasonable prospects of success in accordance with rule 76(1)(b) of the 2013 rules of procedure. 1.3 I have made two case management orders in preparation for today. I initially made orders providing for the claimant to provide any initial comments on the application, and for each party to indicate whether they required the application to be dealt with at a hearing or on submissions. If it was to be on submissions, I indicated further orders would follow. By that time, Mr Haynes was representing himself having previously had the benefit of representation by solicitors and counsel. He set out his initial response. Both parties consented for the application to be dealt with on written submissions. 2 1.4 As a result, I issued further orders permitting any new evidence (such as inter party correspondence relevant to costs including that which may have been sent on a without prejudice save as to costs basis), any final submissions, and replies to the same including on the issue of the assessment of the costs claimed. Those orders were complied with. 2 The law 2.1 Rule 76(1)(b) permits an employment tribunal to make a costs order where a party has pre…