Loughborough College Costs Order Overturned in Race Discrimination Case
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has overturned a £20,000 costs order against a claimant in a race discrimination case against Loughborough College.
• public
Employment Appeal Tribunal Overturns Costs Order in Race Discrimination Case
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has ruled that an Employment Tribunal erred in law when ordering a claimant, Mr A E Madu, to pay £20,000 in costs to Loughborough College following a failed race discrimination claim. The original decision was made after a hearing on 27 February 2023, with the judgment sent to parties on 11 March 2023.
Background of the Case
Mr Madu, a litigant in person (unrepresented individual) at the start of proceedings, claimed race discrimination after being unsuccessful in his application for a part-time lecturer role at Loughborough College in 2018. He alleged less favourable treatment compared to white candidates during the interview process. His claim was heard over several days in 2021 and 2022 but was ultimately dismissed. Loughborough College then pursued a costs application against Mr. Madu.
Grounds of Appeal
Mr Madu appealed the costs order, arguing, amongst other points, that the Employment Tribunal had failed to adequately consider the difficulties faced by unrepresented claimants in discrimination cases. A key point of contention was the Employment Tribunal's assumption that, after obtaining legal representation, Mr Madu must have been advised that his claim lacked merit and had no reasonable prospect of success.
EAT Decision
His Honour Judge James Tayler, presiding over the EAT, found that the Employment Tribunal had indeed erred in law by making assumptions about privileged legal advice. The EAT stated that this assumption was a "significant component" of the decision to award costs and undermined the entire judgment.
The EAT also highlighted that the Employment Tribunal did not sufficiently consider the challenges faced by claimants in discrimination cases, particularly when unrepresented, in determining whether a claim had no reasonable prospect of success. The EAT emphasised that assessing the merits of a discrimination claim can be difficult before hearing and testing the employer's explanations in court.
Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted to a differently constituted Employment Tribunal for a fresh determination of the costs application.
The case serves as a reminder of the complexities involved in discrimination claims and the need for Employment Tribunals to carefully consider the specific circumstances of each case, including the challenges faced by litigants in person. It also clarifies that simply holding a sincere belief in discrimination is not carte blanche to pursue a meritless case.
Read the entire judgement here: Mr A E Madu v Loughborough College [2025] EAT 52
