Another judgment from the Employment Appeal Tribunal ("EAT") suggesting, even more bluntly than the previous ones that a Claimant who lies in the tribunal should be ordered to pay the Respondent's costs.

On the facts, the EAT substituted an order that a Claimant who had been defrauded his employer should have to pay the Respondent's costs for (basically) having the cheek to bring a tribunal claim. However, a couple of interesting pointers arose:

• the fact that the Claimant's solicitors ceased acting does not, of itself, suggest the Claimant is not listening to legal advice.
• a Claimant cannot argue he was acting reasonably in bring a claim because he simply wanted a 'declaration' of unfair dismissal (para 39). This largely contradicts Telephone Information Services Ltd v Wilkinson (1991) IRLR 148, a case which was not cited to the EAT, and probably rightly so.

Nicolson Highlandwear Ltd v Nicolson