Cost Orders - An exception to the rule in Employment cases - but not in this case…

In the case of Tan v Copthorne Hotels the Tribunal ordered the Claimant to pay a whopping 6 figure sum in an almost unheard of Cost Order.

The Claimant was a senior vice president of a hotel group. The Respondent was Millennium & Copthorne Hotels. They are a global hotel group.

The Claimant was put at risk of redundancy by the Respondent. However, it is said that he responded to this by making numerous allegations of discrimination, victimisation, harassment, whistleblowing detriment and unlawful deductions from wages.

The Claimant brought proceedings for unfair dismissal, automatically unfair dismissal, age discrimination, race discrimination, discrimination because of sexual orientation, victimisation, harassment, whistleblowing detriment and unlawful deductions from wages. 

During the proceedings it transpired that the Claimant had covertly recorded hundreds of hours of meetings and private conversations with colleagues. There were some 3,000 pages of transcripts of the recordings, some of which the tribunal described as “deceitful” and “duplicitous”.

The matter was heard at a hearing lasting seven days at the Central London Employment Tribunal.

Following the trial, the judge reserved to give judgment which ultimately found against the Claimant on all grounds save except whistleblowing which was withdrawn by the Claimant. 

The ET awarded Millennium & Copthorne Hotels an eye watering £432,000 – this included £111,000 for the expenses of the costs proceedings themselves, on the indemnity basis. This is believed to be one of the largest awards ever made in the jurisdiction. 

The Respondent was awarded this level of costs as a result of the entirely 'vexatious' conduct of Mr Tan and his claims, which the ET found he had continued with unreasonably – despite having to pay deposit orders on the majority of his claims.

So… this is certainly a case to remind Claimant’s that bringing unreasonable and vexatious claims will no longer be tolerated and sends out a strong message to troublesome litigators.