Costs in Employment Tribunal Proceedings – Lessons from Prasad v Epsom and St Helier Hospital NHS Trust [2026] EAT 23

The case of Dr Prasad against Epsom and St Helier Hospital NHS Trust is an example in which the Employment Appeal Tribunal confirmed that even in discrimination and whistleblowing cases - areas where costs orders are relatively rare—it is still possible for the losing party to be ordered to pay a significant amount when their conduct in the proceedings has been unreasonable, or when parts of their claims had no realistic prospect of success from the outset. The EAT upheld the Employment Tribunal’s order requiring the claimant to pay £20,000 in costs.

Dr Prasad was a consultant cardiologist employed by the hospital from 2010 to 2020. During her employment she raised concerns about patient safety, and her relationship with another doctor deteriorated significantly. Both sides made allegations about each other’s clinical performance. In her claims, she alleged race and sex discrimination, victimisation, harassment and detriments related to whistleblowing. In February 2022, the Tribunal dismissed all her claims.

After the dismissal, the employer applied for costs, arguing that some of the allegations were fundamentally flawed - for example, the claimant alleged sex discrimination while comparing herself to a woman, or race discrimination while comparing herself to someone of the same race. Other claims had no prospect of success because they lacked factual foundations or there was no evidence to support them. The Tribunal also noted that the way the claimant conducted the litigation led to excessively large bundles and the need to call many witnesses, which significantly increased the length, cost and complexity of the proceedings.

The appeal court carefully analysed the rules that allow costs to be awarded when a party behaves unreasonably or when their claims have no reasonable prospect of success.

The EAT concluded that the ET had correctly assessed both grounds: some claims were doomed to fail from the moment they were submitted, and the claimant’s conduct during the litigation—especially after disclosure and witness evidence—was objectively unreasonable. The court confirmed that there is no requirement to link specific elements of the costs to specific pieces of unreasonable conduct; it is enough to show that the way the case was conducted contributed to an overall increase in costs and complexity.

Dr Prasad also challenged the fact that the costs hearing went ahead without her. She had submitted several applications for postponement but had not supported them with adequate medical evidence, and on the day of the hearing she did not attend and did not contact the Tribunal. The EAT held that the ET acted properly: it made attempts to establish her situation and ultimately decided to proceed. The court stated that refusing to postpone the hearing was within the ET’s discretion, and that unexplained non‑attendance cannot be allowed to halt proceedings.

This judgment clearly demonstrates that although costs orders in employment cases remain the exception, they do happen, and the Tribunal will not hesitate to make them where claims are formulated on obviously incorrect assumptions or where the litigation is conducted in a way that generates unnecessary cost and burden for the parties and for the court.

This is especially relevant in discrimination and whistleblowing cases, where serious allegations must be grounded in solid factual foundations. The judgment is a reminder that even litigants in person must exercise basic care and diligence when constructing and maintaining their claims, and that pursuing allegations based on incorrect factual premises can lead to significant financial consequences.

Join the mailing list to receive legal updates: https://www.martainkin.co.uk/legal-updates