The Claimant was ordered to pay £5,200 in costs towards the Respondent's costs of £29,000 on the basis that not only had the Claimant unreasonably pursued claims that had no reasonable prospect of success so as to engage the ET's costs jurisdiction under Rule 76(1), it was appropriate to make an award of costs in the sum of £5,200, which was set at a level that the Claimant might be expected to be able to pay and also that would cause her to consider carefully before pursuing any further ET claims. The Claimant appealed.

The EAT allowed the appeal. The issue of possible deterrence had been an improper consideration and had thus tainted the ET's exercise of its judicial discretion.