US Firm Quinn Emanuel Hit With £8,000 Costs Order for Disclosure Failures — What the Decision Signals for Employers and Litigators
Key Takeaways:
- Disclosure compliance is critical — Employment tribunals will penalise parties who miss disclosure deadlines or fail to raise genuine issues, such as privilege, promptly and transparently.
- Aggressive tactics can backfire — Strike-out applications and procedural escalation are likely to be viewed as unreasonable where the applicant is itself in breach of tribunal orders.
- Costs risk is real in tribunal proceedings — Although rare, costs orders will be made where litigation conduct falls below expected standards, even against well-resourced and experienced law firms.
A recent decision of the UK employment tribunal has sent a clear procedural warning to employers and their advisers: failure to comply promptly and transparently with disclosure orders can carry real financial and reputational consequences — even for elite international law firms.
In January 2026, the Law Society Gazette reported that Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, one of the world’s best-known litigation firms, was ordered to pay £8,371 in costs following delays in disclosure in an employment tribunal claim brought by a former employee. While the sum itself may appear modest, the reasoning behind the order — and the tribunal’s criticism of litigation conduct — carries much wider significance for employers operating in the UK.
At Parachute Law, where we regularly advise on employment disputes, disclosure strategy, and litigation risk management, this case highlights how procedural missteps can quickly escalate into adverse cost consequences, even in a jurisdiction where costs orders remain relatively rare.
The background: disclosure obligations ignored
The underlying claims were brought by former employee Luke Decker against Quinn Emanuel and a designated member, Paul Baker. The claims included disability discrimination, public interest disclosure (whistleblowing), and unfair dismissal — all categories where tribunals scrutinise employer conduct particularly closely.
A tribunal order required Quinn Emanuel and Baker to complete disclosure by May 2025. That deadline was not met.
Nine days before the deadline, the firm sought an extension from Decker’s solicitors, citing concerns that some materials were legally privileged and would need to be disclosed on a conditional basis. Decker offered a shorter extension, but the parties failed to reach agreement, and disclosure was not completed as ordered.
Crucially, the tribunal later found that Quinn Emanuel did not raise privilege concerns at the time the disclosure order was made — only months later, after the deadline had passed.
The strike-out application that backfired
Rather than applying promptly to vary the disclosure order or seeking the tribunal’s guidance on privilege safeguards, Quinn Emanuel took a more aggressive procedural step.
In October 2025, the firm applied to strike out Decker’s claim, arguing that he had failed to comply with tribunal orders and had not actively pursued the case. That application brought the unresolved disclosure issue into sharp focus.
A series of increasingly contentious letters followed, with both sides accusing the other of non-compliance. The matter ultimately came before Employment Judge David Hughes at a preliminary hearing.
From the tribunal’s perspective, the strike-out application proved pivotal — and not in Quinn Emanuel’s favour.
Tribunal criticism: “excessive and unreasonable”
Judge Hughes rejected the strike-out application and was highly critical of Quinn Emanuel’s conduct.
Decker argued that the firm had engaged in “wholesale non-disclosure,” adopted a “needlessly repetitive” approach to correspondence, and acted unreasonably by pursuing strike-out proceedings while itself in breach of a disclosure order.
Quinn Emanuel contended that it had suggested discussions around safeguarding privileged material and that the strike-out application was made only after prolonged disengagement by Decker.
The tribunal was unconvinced.
Judge Hughes found that the strike-out attempt was excessive and unreasonable, particularly because Quinn Emanuel knew it had not complied with the May 2025 disclosure order. The firm’s failure to raise privilege issues at the appropriate time weighed heavily against it.
In remarks reported by the Gazette, Hughes stated:
“To sit on something that should have been evident, for a period of months, was also unreasonable.”
This finding goes to the heart of tribunal case management: parties are expected to raise genuine procedural difficulties proactively and promptly — not deploy them tactically after deadlines have been missed.
Costs in employment tribunals: why this matters
Unlike the civil courts, employment tribunals in England and Wales operate on a no-costs-shifting principle as a starting point. Costs orders are the exception, not the rule, and are usually reserved for cases involving unreasonable conduct, abuse of process, or hopeless claims or defences.
That makes this decision particularly noteworthy.
The tribunal found that Quinn Emanuel’s conduct crossed the threshold of unreasonableness — not simply because disclosure was late, but because of how the firm responded once non-compliance became apparent.
Although Decker sought £20,000 in costs, the tribunal reduced the award to reflect his own failures to comply with disclosure obligations. Ultimately, Quinn Emanuel and Baker were ordered jointly and severally to pay £8,371, covering the costs of a November 2025 hearing.
The balanced approach — criticising both sides but still imposing a costs sanction — underscores that tribunals will assess litigation behaviour holistically, rather than treating procedural breaches in isolation.
Privilege is not a shield for delay
One of the most important lessons from this case concerns legal privilege.
Privilege is a fundamental protection, particularly in employment disputes involving internal investigations, sensitive communications, or regulatory issues. But privilege concerns do not justify silence or inaction.
Tribunals expect parties to:
- raise privilege issues at the point disclosure orders are made;
- seek clarification, variation, or protective measures promptly;
- propose practical solutions, such as redaction, confidentiality rings, or limited inspection; and
- continue engaging constructively while privilege disputes are resolved.
What tribunals will not tolerate is privilege being raised retrospectively as an explanation for months of non-compliance. As this case demonstrates, failing to address privilege early can transform a legitimate concern into evidence of unreasonable conduct.
The reputational dimension for employers
For Quinn Emanuel, the financial penalty may be immaterial. The reputational implications, however, are harder to ignore.
Employment tribunals are public forums, and decisions — particularly those involving costs and judicial criticism — are readily reported. For professional services firms, allegations of procedural sharp practice or unreasonable conduct can be as damaging as the underlying employment claims themselves.
For employers more broadly, the message is clear: how a case is litigated can matter as much as its eventual outcome. Procedural missteps, unnecessary escalation, and tactical applications can all undermine credibility before a tribunal.
Key takeaways for employers and advisers
From an employment law risk perspective, the decision offers several practical lessons:
1. Treat disclosure deadlines as non-negotiable
If compliance is genuinely impossible, apply to vary the order before the deadline expires — not after.
2. Raise privilege issues early and formally
Privilege should be addressed when disclosure is ordered, not months later when deadlines are missed.
3. Avoid aggressive applications while in breach
Strike-out and costs applications are unlikely to succeed if the applicant has unresolved non-compliance of its own.
4. Correspondence conduct matters
Tribunals increasingly scrutinise litigation behaviour, including repetitive or hostile correspondence that inflames disputes rather than resolving them.
5. Costs risk is real — even in tribunals
While rare, costs orders will be made where conduct is found to be unreasonable, particularly in case management disputes.
A cautionary tale for UK employment litigation
This decision does not suggest that Quinn Emanuel’s defence to the substantive claims lacks merit. But it does demonstrate that procedural discipline is not optional — even for sophisticated litigants with extensive litigation experience.
For employers navigating employment tribunal proceedings, the case is a timely reminder that compliance, transparency, and early engagement are not merely best practice — they are essential to avoiding avoidable sanctions.
At Parachute Law, we continue to see tribunals adopt a firmer stance on case management abuse and procedural delay. Employers who underestimate the importance of disclosure compliance do so at their peril — regardless of size, reputation, or resources.
Related Articles:
Rising Costs and the Employment Rights Bill: Why UK Businesses Fear for Jobs and Growth
