In Madu v Loughborough College [2025] EAT 52, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) considered whether a £20,000 costs order against a race discrimination claimant was fair, especially where the claimant had spent part of the case without legal representation.
In 2018, Mr Madu, a Black British applicant, applied for a part-time lecturer role at Loughborough College. After his request to reschedule his interview was denied, while a white Irish candidate was granted one, he brought a race discrimination claim, later instructing solicitors. The successful applicant, a white British candidate, had scored higher in the interview.
Mr Madu argued he was treated less favourably in the scheduling, selection process, and handling of complaints, citing the College’s low ethnic diversity (2.9% non-white staff).
The tribunal dismissed the claim and awarded the College £20,000 in costs. It assumed Mr Madu’s solicitors had advised him his case lacked merit.
On appeal, Mr Madu argued the tribunal wrongly assumed the content of his legal advice and failed to account for the time he was self-represented and the complexities of discrimination cases.
The EAT upheld the appeal and sent the College’s costs application back to be reconsidered by a differently constituted tribunal.
The EAT criticised the tribunal for not fully appreciating the difficulties faced by unrepresented discrimination claimants in assessing whether their case has reasonable prospects. It also highlighted the inconsistency in holding Mr Madu to a high standard while excusing the College, who had legal representation, for not applying to strike out the claim earlier.
Ultimately, the EAT reiterated that although the legal test for awarding costs is uniform, discrimination claims require a careful and sensitive application of that test.
