Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Personnel Today

Register
Log in
Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Vexatious claims

False claims: gather the evidence from the outset

by David Malamatenious 4 Jun 2009
by David Malamatenious 4 Jun 2009

A recent case shows that it pays employers to collect evidence to combat cheating claimants.

Recently, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) ruled that it was perverse for a tribunal not to award costs against an employee whose discrimination claim was based on a “deliberate and cynical lie”. This was the case of Daleside Nursing Home v Cinlet Mathew). While this decision is a welcome victory for common sense, it is hardly the revolutionary decision portrayed by some commentators.

Readers may remember that Mathew brought a discrimination case in which she claimed that her manager had called her a “black bitch”. She also claimed that she had been underpaid. The employment tribunal found that the central allegation was a lie that she deliberately fabricated to support a weak claim. Bizarrely, the tribunal did not order her to pay costs because she had “a genuine belief that the claim had some merit”. The employer appealed this.

Misconceived

What is worrying is that a claim that was so obviously misconceived and vexatious even had to be referred to the EAT for a decision on costs. This may explain why the EAT was keen to damp down expectations regarding the importance of its decision. The judge emphasised that his decision was based on the particular clear-cut facts of the case and that he did not intend to set out any statement of legal principle.

It should have been abundantly clear to the original tribunal that a costs order was appropriate. Where an explicit and calculated lie lay at the very heart of the claim, then it was open to them to make a finding that the claim was at least misconceived and, quite possibly, vexatious and abusive. Having determined this, the tribunal would then be able to award the employers costs. It was for precisely this scenario that the cost provisions were designed.

New age

This decision, therefore, very much stands on its own and does not herald a new age where tribunals will more readily order costs against claimants. In my experience, getting costs out of a claimant is akin to getting blood out of a stone and one should expect tribunals to continue to display reluctance when it comes to costs. However, the case does provide good ammunition where an employer can show that a claim is based on a deliberate lie.

It also emphasises the importance of cross-checking facts, dates and witnesses to establish whether or not a claimant is lying. Creating a paper trail at the outset, before any matter gets to a tribunal, is essential. Tribunals are greatly swayed by contemporaneous documents and letters that will trump unreliable and uncorroborated oral testimony. While tribunals sometimes appear to want to give the claimant the benefit of the doubt, they cannot do so in the face of overwhelming documentary evidence to the contrary.

Such evidence can also be used to dissuade an apparently untruthful claimant from going ahead with a claim on the basis that the employer will be pressing for costs.

Costs awarded

What if an employer is awarded costs? What can an employer reasonably request? Not necessarily much. The tribunal can only award up to £10,000. If more is required, the matter has to be referred to a County Court costs judge. Tribunals will also usually have regard to an employee’s ability to pay when ordering costs, and employees are often impecunious. This means employers may still pick up the lion’s share of the tab.

Employers should not put too much emphasis on the importance of the Daleside case. The decision is helpful and it can be referred to in hearings or to claimants to support a threat of costs. But it will only assist where you can prove that a claim is founded on a deliberate and calculated lie. Otherwise, it’s likely to be business as usual.

Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance

Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday

OptOut
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Key points

  • Check dates and facts in the claimant’s evidence
  • Start a coherent paper trail from the outset of the case
  • Keep all contemporaneous letters and documents
  • Be prepared to present your evidence before the false claim goes ahead.

David Malamatenios, senior associate, Colman Coyle

David Malamatenious

previous post
Medical workforce will be mainly made up of women by 2017
next post
Shell fined £300,000 for fire safety breaches

You may also like

Former HSBC risk chief loses race discrimination case

3 Jul 2024

HRD claimant does not have to pay employer’s...

3 Jan 2024

Serial claimant banned after ‘weaponising’ employment tribunal system

11 Mar 2022

Worker taped to chair loses £500k unfair dismissal...

20 Jan 2022

Hotel wins record costs after claim from ‘duplicitous’...

22 Sep 2020

Job applicants with spurious intentions: what should employers...

20 Mar 2017

Trainee barrister who brought 30 employment tribunal claims...

23 Oct 2015

Serial litigant banned from further tribunal claims

3 Mar 2015

Do employment tribunal fees lead to more contentious...

14 Nov 2014

Employment tribunal costs: party’s insurance cover not a...

12 Nov 2014

  • 2025 Employee Communications Report PROMOTED | HR and leadership...Read more
  • The Majority of Employees Have Their Eyes on Their Next Move PROMOTED | A staggering 65%...Read more
  • Prioritising performance management: Strategies for success (webinar) WEBINAR | In today’s fast-paced...Read more
  • Self-Leadership: The Key to Successful Organisations PROMOTED | Eletive is helping businesses...Read more
  • Retaining Female Talent: Four Ways to Reduce Workplace Drop Out PROMOTED | International Women’s Day...Read more

Personnel Today Jobs
 

Search Jobs

PERSONNEL TODAY

About us
Contact us
Browse all HR topics
Email newsletters
Content feeds
Cookies policy
Privacy policy
Terms and conditions

JOBS

Personnel Today Jobs
Post a job
Why advertise with us?

EVENTS & PRODUCTS

The Personnel Today Awards
The RAD Awards
Employee Benefits
Forum for Expatriate Management
OHW+
Whatmedia

ADVERTISING & PR

Advertising opportunities
Features list 2025

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • Linkedin


© 2011 - 2025 DVV Media International Ltd

Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+