After a workplace dispute has escalated into a legal claim, many employees view the employment tribunal (ET) as a "free ticket" to present their side of the story without incurring substantial financial risk. However, a recent ruling has reaffirmed that, while the gates to justice remain open, they do not serve as a forum for dishonesty, as a claimant who pursued a victimisation case recently found to his cost. Anyone caught in a lie during a job application may also discover that "subjective belief" cannot override objective reality and may face a stinging financial penalty.
Background:
The case began when Mr. Ikeji applied for a new role while embroiled in a legal battle with a former employer, the Office for Rail and Road (ORR). During his interview in January 2023, the applicant explicitly told the hiring panel that he was currently and permanently employed by the ORR. Mr. Ikeji even doubled down in follow-up emails, claiming that he had resigned from his "current" role only after receiving their conditional offer.
The truth, however, was far less convenient. The applicant had actually been dismissed by the ORR six months prior, in July of 2022. The evidence of his knowledge of this termination was undeniable, as he had already filed an ET claim against the ORR for unfair dismissal and had unsuccessfully applied for interim relief—a specific legal remedy under Section 103A of the Employment Rights Act (ERA) 1996—to keep his contract alive. When the prospective employer discovered the discrepancy through reference checks, they promptly withdrew the job offer. The applicant then sued for victimisation under Section 27 of the Equality Act 2010, arguing that the offer was pulled because he had exercised his right to sue previous employers. The ET ordered Mr. Ikeji to pay £3,000 in costs following a full merits hearing in November 2023 and refused to hear a reconsideration application in January 2024. Mr. Ikeji appealed.
Decision:
The Employment Appeal (EAT) Tribunal refused the appeal, upholding the original costs order against the claimant. The EAT began by confirming the dismissal of the underlying victimisation claim, agreeing that the job offer was withdrawn on account of the claimant's dishonesty rather than upon consideration of his ongoing legal claims. Regarding the financial penalty, the EAT found that the claimant’s conduct met the threshold of "unreasonable conduct" under Rule 76(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunals Regulations (ET Regs) 2013.
The claimant attempted to argue that he genuinely believed his employment contract still existed because he was actively "affirming" it via his legal challenge. However, the Court applied the principles from Arrowsmith v. Nottingham Trent University [2012], which dictates that, while a simple lie might not always lead to costs, a lie about a fact which is central to the case almost certainly will. The Judge ruled that, since the claimant had filed a claim for unfair dismissal, he undeniably knew he was no longer employed. Moreover, the Court rejected the "subjective belief" defence, noting that the claimant’s actions in suing for a lost job were entirely inconsistent with his interview claims of still being in employment.
Implications:
This ruling serves as a crucial reminder that facts are not open to flexible interpretation by judges. While the ET is designed to be accessible, it has a low tolerance for "unreasonable conduct," and being ‘caught in a lie’ about a central tenet of your case can set you on a swift path to footing the employer’s legal bills. Any "subjective belief" about a situation will rarely protect you if your own previous actions or legal filings tell a different story.
