The Claimant, who worked for the Respondent, was dismissed following a restructuring exercise. She brought several claims in the ET, including for age discrimination, automatic unfair dismissal by reason of public interest disclosures and breach of contract. The ET, by its liability judgment, dismissed the majority of her claims, but it made an award for breach of contract in respect of unpaid employer's pension contributions. The Claimant then applied for a costs order, but the ET dismissed her application for costs and the recovery of fees, stating that the Respondent had not acted unreasonably in conducting the proceedings and that, even if the Claimant had established unreasonable conduct on the part of the Respondent, it would have taken into account the following in deciding whether to exercise its discretion to award costs: the Claimant lost the vast majority of claims that she had brought; she succeeded in only a small part of the claim; and she had been offered, before she commenced proceedings, considerably more than she was awarded. The Claimant appealed on the ground that the ET failed to give adequate reasons for its decision to refuse the Claimant's application for the costs of her preparation time.

The EAT held that the ET had adequately explained why it considered that the Respondent had not acted unreasonably in conducting the proceedings or that the Respondent had not acted in any way that led to unnecessary costs; and, while it would have been preferable for the ET to have set out its reasons more fully, it was not an error of law for it not to have done so.