Employment Appeal Tribunal Upholds Costs Order Against Claimant for Dishonesty
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has dismissed an appeal against a costs order, finding the claimant acted unreasonably due to dishonesty.
• public
Tribunal Upholds Finding of Dishonesty and Costs Order
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has dismissed an appeal brought by Mr A Ikeji against a costs order made by an Employment Tribunal. The original tribunal had found that Mr Ikeji had been dishonest in his job application and interview process with Westminster City Council. This dishonesty was deemed central to the dismissal of his victimisation claim under the Equality Act 2010.
Mr Ikeji had alleged he was victimised due to protected acts, specifically claiming the withdrawal of a job offer and a failure to address discrepancies in his employment history were discriminatory. However, the Employment Tribunal concluded that the reasons for these detriments were Mr Ikeji's dishonesty regarding his employment history, not any protected act.
Following the dismissal of his claim, the respondents applied for costs of £18,000, citing Mr Ikeji's unreasonable conduct through dishonesty. The Employment Tribunal awarded £3,000 in costs. Mr Ikeji appealed this decision, arguing that his subjective beliefs about his employment history meant he hadn't lied, even if those beliefs were mistaken.
The EAT rejected this argument. In its judgment, the tribunal stated that it was entitled to consider the credibility of evidence and whether the appellant had lied. The tribunal unanimously found that Mr Ikeji had knowingly been dishonest, a factual conclusion open to it on the evidence. The EAT found no error of law in the original tribunal's reasoning, confirming that the claimant's dishonesty in relation to a central fact made pursuing the claim unreasonable.
Further grounds of appeal, including arguments about subjective belief and the application of case law such as Arrowsmith and Nagarajan, were also dismissed. The EAT found that the original tribunal had correctly considered the appellant's subjective state of mind and had made a legitimate factual finding of dishonesty. The appeals against both the costs order and the subsequent refusal to reconsider the decision were therefore refused.
Read the entire judgment here: Ikeji v Westminster City Council & Anor. EAT 62
