The Claimant lost her claim of unfair dismissal on the grounds of having made protected disclosures. The ET concluded that the reason for dismissal was not any protected disclosure, but concerns about the Claimant’s performance and conduct. The ET awarded the Respondent the whole of its costs on the basis that the claim had no reasonable prospect of success from the outset. It alternatively held that the Respondent was entitled to its costs from the date on which a deposit order fell to complied with, on the basis that the Claimant had acted unreasonably by continuing with the litigation from that date. The Claimant appealed.

The EAT allowed the appeal in part. The ET did not have a sufficient basis to conclude that the claim had had no reasonable prospect of success at the outset but the EAT concluded that the Claimant should pay the Respondent's costs incurred after the deposit order had been complied with.