The Fair Employment Tribunal has awarded £4,500 costs against a NIPSA full-time official following his misconceived claims of political discrimination against the union and other officials. The Tribunal found Mr Boomer at fault for much of the length of the hearing and felt he conducted himself unreasonably. He had also been warned that the respondents would seek costs. Therefore, pursuant to Rule 35(3) of the Rules of Procedure, it was then necessary for the Tribunal to consider, as part of the said two-stage process, whether to exercise its discretion and to make an Order for Costs.

The Tribunal decided that it was an appropriate exercise of its discretion to make such an Order for Costs against the claimant. In particular, the Tribunal was satisfied that, if the claimant had not pursued these claims, the length of the substantive hearing in this matter would have been considerably reduced, with the consequential saving of time and expense, which was contrary to the terms of the overriding objective. It was a relevant factor to the Tribunal, in the exercise of its discretion, that the claimant had received from the respondents’ representatives a detailed costs letter dated 12 April 2012, which was before the substantive hearing had commenced on 30 April 2012.

The said letter stated, inter alia:-“Without prejudice save as to costs We refer to the above matter and wish to advise you that we have fully reviewed all the evidence in this case including all the witness statements and are of the opinion that your client’s claim stands no reasonable prospect of success. We maintain this view as it is clear that your client has not been treated less favourably on the grounds of political opinion. It is also clear that the claimant has not been harassed or victimised … … We therefore will allow the claimant until Friday 20 th April next to withdraw his claim with both sides bearing their own costs. If the time-limit is not met this offer will be withdrawn and if the respondents are successful, as we anticipate, we intend seeking an award against the claimant ...” Yet, the claimant effectively ignored this letter and continued to pursue all of his claims, without regard to the terms of the letter. The decision can be found on the Tribunal's website under Tribunal Decisions by searching for ‘Boomer’ under Claimant or ‘Campfield’ under Respondent. http://bit.ly/18RSeiQ