J Mayanja v City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council

HIS HONOUR JUDGE JAMES TAYLER:

1. The claimant appealed against judgments of Employment Judge O’Neill sitting with members. The first was a liability judgment sent to the parties on 15 November 2022 after a hearing on 17, 18 and 19 October 2022. The second was a reconsideration judgment sent to the parties on 17 August 2023, after a hearing on 11 August 2023.

2. The parties are referred to as the claimant and respondent as they were before the Employment Tribunal.

3. The claimant describes himself as being of black African ethnicity. The claimant asserted that he had been offered and accepted a job as Refugee and New Communities Integration Officer with the respondent Council in October 2021. The respondent asserted that no offer was made but the claimant was merely informed that he was the preferred candidate in an ongoing selection process. He was asked to provide references. During that process the respondent asserts the material he provided demonstrated that the claimant had made misleading statements in his job application, as a result of which his candidacy was not taken forward. That decision was taken by Ms Clipsom, Outreach and Private Rented Options Service Manager.

4. The claimant brought complaints of breach of contract, direct race discrimination, indirect race discrimination and victimisation in respect of the decision not to progress with his candidacy and of race harassment in respect of a comment allegedly made during that process by Ms Clipsom.

5. All of the complaints failed. On a fair reading of the judgment as a whole it is clear that an adverse view that the Employment Tribunal formed as to the claimant’s credibility was fundamental to the rejection of all of the complaints. A key reason for that determination was the rejection of the claimant’s evidence that Ms Clipsom had offered him the job.

6. After receiving the liability judgment the respondent applied for costs. By a judgment sent to the parties on 12 April 2023 the Employment Tribunal awarded cost of £2,000 to the respondent.

7. The claimant made an application for reconsideration on 25 April 2023. The claimant attached an email dated 18 October 2021 that he had discovered on a search of his computer which suggested that Ms Clipsom had made a job offer : Tried ringing but I think your phone may be switched off. I'm pleased to say we'd like to offer you the job. Can I give you a ring in the morning to confirm that you want to take it, and discuss start date etc. [emphasis added]

8. In the reconsideration judgment the Employment Tribunal concluded that the email of 18 October 2021 had not deliberately been concealed.

9. In a judgment handed down on 4 November 2025 I upheld the appeal and remitted the matter to a differently constituted Employment Tribunal: Mayanja v City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council [2025] EAT 160 . I sumarised my findings: The Employment Tribunal found that the claimant was not a credible witness, primarily because it rejected his evidence that a job offer was made to him, and then preferred the evidence of the respondent’s manager to that of the claimant where there was any conflict. In a separate judgment the Employment Tribunal awarded costs against the claimant. After the hearing the claimant discovered the email in which the job offer was apparently made. The Employment Tribunal erred in failing to reconsider the liability judgment. If necessary, in circumstances where the claimant had applied for reconsideration but the Employment Tribunal did not reconsider the liability judgment, I would have permitted the new evidence to be introduced for the purposes of the appeal against the liability judgment. The liability and costs judgments are set aside and the claim is remitted to a differently constituted Employment Tribunal.

10. The appeal judgment handed down on 4 November 2025 should be read together with this judgment.

11. The claimant applied for costs on 18 November 2025. The respondent provided its response to the application on 25 November 2025.

12. The Employment Appeal Tribunal has the power to make an order for costs pursuant to rule 34A of the Employment Appeal Tribunal Rules 1993 (as amended) (“ EAT Rules ”): 34A(1) Where it appears to the Appeal Tribunal that any proceedings brought by the paying party were unnecessary, improper, vexatious or misconceived or that there has been unreasonable delay or other unreasonable conduct in the bringing or conducting of proceedings by the paying party, the Appeal Tribunal may make a costs order against the paying party.[emphasis added]

13. Costs do not follow the event in the EAT, which is generally a costs free jurisdiction. If one of the threshold conditions is met, the EAT still has a discretion to exercise before making an award of costs. As in the Employment Tribunal, it is a two step process; (1) has threshold conduct occurred (2) should the discretion to award costs be exercised; see in the Employment Tribunal context: Madu v Loughborough College [2025] EAT 52 , [2025] ICR 1126 .

14. The claimant has relied on the Employment Tribunal Rules 2024 and the CPR neither of which are the relevant provisions for an application for costs in the EAT. The relevant provisions are in the EAT Rules . The application is not a clear as it might be but it appears that the claimant asserts that the response to the appeal was misconceived and/or that the respondent has defended the appeal in a manner that is unreasonable.

15. It will be for the Employment Tribunal on remission to determine whether when the email of 18 October 2021 is taken into account together with the other relevant evidence the claim is meritorious. That may involve it considering whether it was concealed by Ms Clipsom.

16. The claimant asserts that the respondent “accepted liability in failing to disclose key evidence and giving dishonesty statement in previous hearing” and that Ms Clipsom acknowledged “lies on oath”. That does not reflect the position of the respondent. Ms Clipsom contended that she had not found the 18 October 2021 email. The respondents contention was that there was an equal obligation on it and the claimant to disclose the email. While I concluded that the unusual case management order made by the Employment Tribunal placed primary responsibility on the respondent to produce the bundle, the position taken by the respondent, that the claimant also had a responsibility to disclose the 18 October 2021 email, was arguable. There is no current finding that Ms Clipsom deliberately concealed the email of 18 October 2021. I did not make any such finding in determining the appeal. It may be a matter for the Employment Tribunal to determine on remission.

17. I do not accept the claimant’s contention that the defence to the appeal was bound to fail or that mounting the defence amounted to an abuse of the process.

18. I have concluded that the respondent has not been shown to have been guilty of threshold conduct that would permit an award of costs. Having heard the arguments on both sides the appeal succeeded, but that, of itself, is not a sufficient reason to award costs. The application for costs is refused.