Costs Awards and Misconduct in Employment Tribunals: Key Lessons from M Willis v GWB Harthills LLP

In the recent case of M Willis v GWB Harthills LLP & Others [2025] EAT 79, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) provided critical insights into the complexities surrounding costs awards in tribunal disputes. The ruling, which upheld the costs awarded against Mr M Willis, a former managing partner of a law firm, highlighted how important it is to consider a party's ability to pay alongside the tribunal's discretionary powers when deciding on costs.

The matter arose after Mr Willis challenged a costs award made against him. Following a protracted legal dispute, the tribunal determined that Mr Willis had acted unreasonably in the bringing and conduct of his claims, leading to an order for him to pay costs capped at £210,000, a figure that was to be assessed by the County Court. Mr Willis contended that the tribunal failed to adequately consider his financial situation and the repercussions for his family, who could potentially face displacement if he had to sell their home to meet the costs.

The EAT confirmed that tribunals indeed hold the discretion to award costs, especially when one party's conduct may be deemed vexatious or unreasonable. During the hearing, extensive discussions revealed that Mr Willis faced significant debts, and he argued that his conditions as a disabled person suffering from cancer were not given due consideration in the tribunal's decision. However, the EAT found that the tribunal exercised its discretion appropriately and had adequately considered Mr Willis’s financial situation, especially given the half-share of a family home that was valued much higher than he had claimed.

While evaluating the case, the EAT emphasised the importance of balancing justice with a fair distribution of costs. They stated that the costs order was warranted due to Mr Willis's actions, which included purportedly misleading evidence and a lack of cooperation with tribunal procedures. These actions, especially from a solicitor, underscored a serious breach of the professional duty to uphold the integrity of the legal process.

The EAT also noted the prior history of the case, wherein evidence of untruthfulness by Mr Willis had been established and should not be overlooked in deliberating costs. A significant aspect of the ruling involved the provisions of the Employment Tribunal Rules, particularly the now-amended Rule 84, which allows tribunal members to consider a party's ability to pay when awarding costs. The EAT confirmed that while a party's ability to pay must be taken into account, it does not automatically prevent a costs order if there are other compelling reasons indicating fault in a party’s conduct.

In conclusion, the rejection of Mr Willis’s appeal underscores the ongoing complexities inherent in adjudicating costs within employment law disputes. The EAT's thorough scrutiny of both the conduct and financial implications of the case establishes an important precedent for future tribunal decisions, ensuring a careful balance between justice and a fair assessment of conduct in such contentious matters