A £20,000 costs order was made against the Claimant after the ET concluded that the Claimant had acted vexatiously, abusively, disruptively and unreasonably in the way in which he had pursued proceedings and that, in all the circumstances, it was just and equitable that he pay the respondents' costs. The Claimant appealed on four grounds, by each of which it was contended that the ET erred in law in the exercise of its discretion as to costs.

The EAT dismissed the appeal. The ET had identified and applied the correct legal principles and had been entitled to come to the conclusions which it had reached, including its summary assessment of the costs payable.