Tribunal Intelligence · Yerty Findings
How often are costs ordered at tribunal — and who pays?
Costs orders are rare at employment tribunal. We identify one in at least 2.4% of cases — about 1 in 40. And when costs land, they more often land on the worker: orders ran against the claimant in 1,718 cases versus 941 against the employer, and at seven times the median (£7,142 vs £1,000).
| Direction | Cases | Median order |
|---|---|---|
| Against the claimant | 1,718 | £7,142 |
| Against the respondent | 941 | £1,000 |
| In the claimant's favour | 312 | £780 |
| Mixed / both | 130 | £14,900 |
| In the respondent's favour | 16 | £4,414 |
Costs are the exception, not the rule
Unlike the civil courts, the employment tribunal does not usually make the losing side pay. We find a dedicated costs judgment in 1,836 cases (1.4%), and any identified costs order in 3,141 (about 2.4%). The vast majority of claims produce no costs order at all.
When costs land, they more often land on claimants
Where direction was identified, costs ran against the claimant nearly twice as often as against the respondent (1,718 vs 941), and the median order against a claimant (£7,142) was seven times the median against a respondent (£1,000). The largest typical orders sat in the smaller mixed category (£14,900).
Why the asymmetry
Tribunal costs follow unreasonable conduct in how a case is brought or run, not simply who loses. In practice that threshold appears to be crossed more often by claimants than by well-advised respondents. It is a reason to treat a weak or aggressively pursued claim with care, but it does not make costs a common outcome.
Methodology & coverage
Dedicated costs judgments (1,836) are identified corpus-wide. Any identified costs order (3,141) includes costs decided inside a main judgment, and our costs extraction is still being extended across the corpus — so 3,141 is a developing lower bound and the true rate is somewhat higher. The order-of-magnitude (~2%) and the directional asymmetry are robust. Costs rates are not published in official Ministry of Justice statistics.
Frequently asked questions
How often are costs ordered at an employment tribunal?
Rarely. We identify a costs order in at least 2.4% of cases (about 1 in 40), and dedicated costs judgments in 1.4%. Unlike civil courts, the tribunal does not usually make the loser pay.
Who usually has to pay costs?
More often the claimant. Of identified orders, costs ran against the claimant in 1,718 cases versus 941 against the respondent — and at a much higher median (£7,142 vs £1,000).
Why do claimants more often pay?
Costs in the tribunal follow unreasonable conduct in how a case is run, rather than simply losing. In practice that threshold is crossed more often by claimants than respondents.
Does losing a tribunal claim mean I pay the employer's costs?
Usually not. Costs are the exception, awarded mainly where a party has behaved unreasonably or brought a claim with no reasonable prospect of success.
Understand the risks before you file
Yerty's Claimant Hub walks you through the process, deadlines and what to expect.
Start with Claimant Hub →Sources
- Yerty Intelligence Hub — analysis of published employment tribunal judgments
Related: award adjustments · reconsideration rate
How to cite this
Yerty (2026). How often are costs ordered at employment tribunal — and who pays?. Yerty Intelligence Hub. https://yerty.co.uk/tribunal-data/employment-tribunal-costs-orders (last updated June 2026).Free to cite for non-commercial use with attribution to Yerty. For commercial use, bulk or API access, or AI training, see our Data Use & Citation policy.
Figures derived from Employment Tribunal decisions published by HM Courts & Tribunals Service on GOV.UK, licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Analysis © Yerty. Re-use is subject to our Data Use & Citation policy.
Yerty provides information, not legal advice. These figures describe the published tribunal record and are not a prediction of costs in any individual case. For advice on your circumstances, consider speaking to a qualified employment solicitor.