The claimant, a doctor pursuing whistleblowing claims against both his employer and Health Education England (HEE), had applied to the Employment Tribunal for a wasted costs order against HEE's solicitors, Hill Dickinson, arguing that non-disclosure during a preliminary "worker status" hearing caused him unnecessary costs. The ET dismissed the application, finding that settlement agreements reached during the litigation precluded the claim, and in any event Hill Dickinson had not acted improperly, unreasonably or negligently, nor had any non-disclosure caused additional costs. This appeal challenged those conclusions, with the claimant's other grounds all contingent on succeeding on the ground concerning improper conduct.

Mrs Justice Stacey dismissed the appeal. The ET had correctly applied Ridehalgh, finding reasonable explanations for the non-disclosure and correctly recognising that a refusal to waive privilege does not automatically excuse conduct, but does not itself establish wrongdoing if there is no evidence the conduct was "plainly unjustifiable." The ET was also entitled to find the requested documents added nothing materially different from information already available to the claimant so its conclusion was within its discretion. As a consequence, the remaining grounds did not require determination.