An Employment Tribunal made an order for costs against an unsuccessful claimant. Although the respondent cited numerous instances of alleged impropriety on the part of the claimant in the course of the proceedings, the Employment Tribunal’s decision to award costs was based upon a “costs warning letter” sent to him by the respondent’s solicitor. That letter had been marked “Without Prejudice”, but the copy provided to the Tribunal had had the first and last paragraphs redacted, removing all reference to the without prejudice nature of the letter.

The EAT held that the Tribunal had been drawn into an inadvertent error of law in relying on a letter which was plainly without prejudice, a status which had been concealed from it by the redaction. The costs order was quashed.

[Summary reproduced from the judgment]