Huntley v Siemens Healthcare: EAT clarifies costs assessment timing

The Employment Appeal Tribunal has dismissed an appeal concerning a costs order, confirming that tribunals may assess whether claims had reasonable prospects of success at any point during proceedings, not solely at their outset. In Huntley v Siemens Healthcare Ltd [2025] EAT 152, Marcus Pilgerstorfer KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, addressed five grounds of appeal challenging a costs award of £7,500.

Mr Huntley, a field service engineer employed by Siemens Healthcare Ltd since 1992, brought claims including disability discrimination, failure to make reasonable adjustments, victimisation, and unfair dismissal. Following a final merits hearing conducted in two parts—April and November 2022—the respondent applied for costs, arguing that continuing with the claims after the April hearing had been unreasonable and that the claims enjoyed no reasonable prospects of success at that juncture.

The central ground of appeal concerned the construction of Rule 76(1)(b) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013. The appellant contended that reasonable prospects of success could only be assessed at the outset of proceedings. The EAT rejected this interpretation, applying the principles established in Radia v Jefferies International [2020] IRLR 431 and Opalkova v Acquire Care Ltd (Unreported, EA-2020-000345-RN). The tribunal held that it remains open to assess whether claims or responses had reasonable prospects of success at any subsequent point during proceedings.

The remaining grounds challenged whether the tribunal correctly applied established principles governing costs awards. The appellant argued that the tribunal failed to adopt a staged approach, improperly considered matters when exercising discretion, overlooked relevant factors including his litigant-in-person status, and provided inadequate reasons.

The EAT found no error in the tribunal's approach. The tribunal had properly identified the threshold requirements under Rule 76(1)(b) before exercising discretion. It had considered the appellant's status as a litigant in person and the legal advice available to him at various stages. The respondent's failure to apply for strike-out or deposit orders carried minimal weight, particularly given the lower threshold required for deposit orders compared with costs applications.

Regarding the adequacy of reasons, the EAT accepted that whilst the tribunal's reasoning could have been fuller, it sufficiently explained its conclusions. The costs judgement permissibly cross-referred to the earlier liability judgement and the respondent's written application. When read together, these documents provided sufficient reasoning as to why the relevant claims lacked reasonable prospects of success after April 2022 and why continuing them constituted unreasonable conduct.

The tribunal had identified fundamental flaws in the claims, including the absence of linkage between the appellant's disability and the detriment relied upon for the section 15 Equality Act claim, time issues unsupported by evidence, and the acknowledged lack of direct evidence supporting the automatic unfair dismissal claim. The victimisation claim had been withdrawn late at the November hearing despite being non-viable.

The EAT emphasised that costs do not automatically follow the event in employment proceedings. Specific criteria must be met to trigger the tribunal's discretion, and legally relevant circumstances must inform any decision to award costs. The principles governing this exercise of discretion are well-established, and the tribunal in this case applied them without error.

All five grounds of appeal were dismissed. The decision reinforces that tribunals retain flexibility to assess claims' prospects throughout proceedings and underscores the importance of heeding judicial warnings and responding appropriately to costs warning letters.