The Claimant had an offer of employment withdrawn after the Respondent discovered discrepancies between what he had written on his application form and references from his previous employment. His claim of victimisation and being subject to detriments because of having done a protected act was dismissed by the ET. The Respondents made an oral application for costs in the sum of £18,000. They maintained that the Claimant had lied about facts related to his employment history and that this was central to the issue of liability in the victimisation claim. They submitted that this amounted to unreasonable conduct in terms of rule 76(1)(a) of the rules of the Employment Tribunal, 2013. The Tribunal agreed and made a costs order for £3,000. The Claimant appealed.

The EAT dismissed the appeal. The ET reached a unanimous conclusion that the Claimant had been knowingly dishonest in his dealings with the Respondents. That conclusion of fact was open to it on the evidence. No error of law was apparent in its reasoning. The ET had considered the Claimant’s subjective state of mind and had concluded that he had knowingly lied.