The Claimant in the ET was the finance director of the Respondent. Following his dismissal he complained of unfair dismissal for the reason or principal reason that he had made protected disclosures, alternatively ordinary unfair dismissal. The ET concluded that the Claimant had not, in law, made protected disclosures, because the disclosures relied upon were not believed by him to have been made in the public interest (alternatively, if they were, his belief was not reasonable). Nor in any event was the Claimant dismissed by reason of those disclosures. The ET found that this was a fair dismissal by reason of a breakdown in trust and confidence that had been caused by the Claimant’s conduct. At a further costs hearing the ET awarded the respondent costs, in a capped amount, subject to detailed assessment on the indemnity basis. It rejected a costs application by the Claimant himself. The Respondent also successfully sought its costs in respect of the costs hearing, which it had limited to the maximum that could be summarily awarded, of £20,000. The Claimant appealed.

The EAT first dismissed the unfair dismissal appeal. An appeal against the costs decision succeeded in two respects. The EAT concluded that, under the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013, the ET does have the power to direct that a detailed costs assessment be on the indemnity basis; but the ET had not shown whether, or if so, why, it had decided that such a direction was warranted in this case, applying the guidelines in Howman v Queen Elizabeth Hospital, UKEAT/0509/12/JOJ. In respect of the “costs of costs” award, the ET had not considered whether the sum of £20,000 was warranted having regard to the nature, gravity and effect of the conduct which gave rise to the award; or if it had considered that, it had not sufficiently explained its decision in that respect.