A Ikeji v Westminster City Council & Anor

In deciding why an employer imposed alleged detriments, an Employment Tribunal may assess the credibility and reliability of the evidence and may determine whether the claimant knowingly gave false information. It may rely on those factual findings when deciding causation.

For costs under rule 76(1)(a), a lie does not automatically make proceedings unreasonable. The Tribunal must assess its context, nature, gravity and effect. A knowingly false statement about a fact central to liability may nevertheless make pursuit of the claim unreasonable. An appellate court will not interfere with a factual finding of dishonesty that was open to the Tribunal and properly addressed the claimant’s subjective state of mind.

The claimant alleged victimisation contrary to section 27 of the Equality Act 2010. He said that the respondents withdrew a job offer and denied him an opportunity to address discrepancies in his employment history because he had brought claims against former employers.

The Employment Tribunal dismissed the claim, finding that the detriments resulted from discrepancies and dishonesty in his job application, rather than protected acts. It then ordered the claimant to pay £3,000 costs under rule 76(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of 2013, and later refused reconsideration.

The claimant appealed the costs order and reconsideration decision. He contended that the Tribunal had wrongly treated his statements about his continuing employment as lies without properly considering his subjective belief.

1. The appeals were refused. The Employment Tribunal was entitled, when determining the respondents’ reasons for the alleged detriments, to assess the credibility and reliability of the evidence. That legitimately included deciding whether the claimant had lied in his job application and interview.

2. The Tribunal could take account of all of its factual findings when deciding causation under section 27 of the Equality Act 2010. Its finding that the claimant had knowingly given false information about his employment with ORR was open to it on the evidence.

3. The Tribunal had addressed the claimant’s subjective state of mind. It rejected his assertion that he was unclear whether his employment had ended and unanimously found that he had knowingly been dishonest. No error of law justified appellate intervention in that factual conclusion.

4. The Tribunal correctly directed itself that, under rule 76(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of 2013, a lie alone does not necessarily justify costs. The context, nature, gravity and effect of the lie require assessment. It permissibly concluded that a lie concerning a central issue of liability made it unreasonable to pursue the claim.

5. Arguments introduced only through the skeleton argument could not enlarge the permitted grounds of appeal. The challenge based on subconscious victimisation sought impermissibly to re-try the merits, and the interview transcript corroborated rather than undermined the finding of dishonesty.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: appeals against the Employment Tribunal’s costs order of 30 November 2023 and reconsideration refusal of 3 January 2024 were refused: [2026] EAT 62.
• Employment Tribunal: dismissed the victimisation claim after a merits and remedy hearing on 28 and 29 November 2023; ordered £3,000 costs and later refused reconsideration.