Bearing Point Ltd. Loses Costs Appeal in Race Discrimination Case
The EAT overturned a costs order against Mr. Iyieke, who claimed race discrimination after being dismissed instead of furloughed. The original tribunal erred in its assessment.
• public
Tribunal Overturns Costs Order Against Claimant in Race Discrimination Case
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has ruled in favour of Mr. Victormills Iyieke, overturning a costs order previously made against him following an unsuccessful race discrimination claim against his former employer, Bearing Point Limited.
Mr. Iyieke, who was dismissed by Bearing Point in April 2020 after the loss of a client contract, argued that he was unfairly treated compared to two colleagues who were furloughed instead. He claimed race discrimination, asserting that these colleagues were suitable comparators. His initial claim was dismissed by the Employment Tribunal.
Subsequently, Bearing Point applied for costs against Mr. Iyieke. The original tribunal found that Mr. Iyieke should have recognised that his case had no reasonable prospect of success after exchanging witness statements. They also criticised his rejection of a settlement offer.
EAT Finds Errors in Tribunal's Reasoning
However, His Honour Judge Auerbach, presiding over the EAT, identified several errors in the tribunal's reasoning. The EAT found that the tribunal failed to adequately consider:
- The potential for Mr. Iyieke to argue his case based on a hypothetical comparator, even if the named colleagues were not directly comparable under the Equality Act 2010.
- The evidentiary relevance of the treatment of the furloughed colleagues.
- Whether the maximum costs award was reasonable and proportionate, irrespective of being lower than the total costs incurred by Bearing Point.
The EAT also noted that the original tribunal had made factual errors regarding the timing of disclosure of relevant payslips and had not sufficiently considered the difficulties faced by claimants in discrimination cases when proving discriminatory intent.
Costs Order Quashed
The EAT concluded that the tribunal had erred in finding that Mr. Iyieke acted unreasonably by continuing to pursue his claim after receiving disclosure. The EAT substituted its own decision, dismissing Bearing Point's costs application entirely.
This ruling highlights the importance of tribunals carefully considering all aspects of discrimination claims, including the possibility of hypothetical comparators and the challenges of proving discriminatory motives. It also underscores the need for a thorough assessment of the reasonableness and proportionality of any costs order.
Read the entire judgement here: Mr Victormills Iyieke v Bearing Point Ltd [2025] EAT 25
