Costs threat inappropriate

Gee v Shell (UK) Ltd (CA TLR 4 November)

For the applicant to establish her claim for wrongful dismissal she had to establish not only that the relationship was that of employer and employee, but also that she had been employed continuously for two years. Another Shell service station operator working under a similar agreement to that of the applicant had lost her unfair dismissal claim. Nevertheless, the chairman of the employment tribunal had been wrong when he warned the applicant that she was at real risk of a substantial costs order being made against her if she proceeded with, but did not succeed in her claim. The warning had been unfair and oppressive and left the applicant with no alternative but to withdraw because she was concerned that her house was at risk. She expressed bitterness that she was not able to put her claim to the tribunal. The prospect of any application for costs against the applicant, let alone one that placed her house at risk, succeeding was remote, and the pressure placed upon her was disproportionate. A tribunal had to be particularly careful not to place unfair pressure on a litigant in person. A tribunal should only make costs warnings such as were made in the present case where there was a real risk that an order for costs would be made against an unsuccessful claimant at the end of the hearing.