The Claimant had been employed to work for the First Respondent through the Second Respondent, an employment agency, until September 2017. The Claimant submitted a claim form in November 2017, and the claims were dismissed in June 2018. The Claimant applied for the postponement of the relevant cost hearing and supported this with some medical evidence. This was refused and the Employment Tribunal (ET) made a costs order for £2,000 at a costs hearing which considered the financial circumstances of the Claimant. The Claimant, following a refusal of his application for the costs judgment to be reconsidered, appealed the decision.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) dismissed the appeal. It was held that the ET had not erred in law by refusing to delay the costs hearing on the basis that the Claimant was unwell and had not slept the night prior to the hearing, nor through its assessment of the means of the Claimant. There was insufficient medical evidence before the ET, for example. The EAT acknowledged that whilst the Claimant had been incapable of paying the costs when the hearing took place, it was reasonably likely that he would be able to pay the costs order sometime in the future. Lastly, the EAT held that Rule 42 of the ET Rules, which provides that the ET must consider any written representations it and the other parties receive seven days prior to a hearing, does not prevent the ET from permitting a party to submit a skeleton argument at the hearing. The EAT did note, however, that for the purposes of fairness, it is usually necessary that the other party is given a reasonable amount of time to read the submitted argument before the hearing.