Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer’s battle with Peter Bloxham, a former partner who unsuccessfully sued for age discrimination, took a new twist this week when the firm said that they would pursue him for their legal costs.

Freshfields, who won a unanimous victory last month, confirmed that they had written to the Employment Tribunal raising the issue of costs.

This is rare in employment cases, a fact that led employment lawyers today to speculate that the firm may be using the threat of costs to discourage Mr Bloxham from making an appeal.

The lawyers said it was "standard practice" to use cost applications as a form of "gentle persuasion".

Mark Rawlinson: 'A lot of firms would like to be where we are'

The Freshfields partner is proudly loyal to the firm he has belonged to 'man and boy', but is now seeking a new challenge

Related Links

• A shame for Peter Bloxham, but not for the profession

• Is he the first among equals?

• Freshfields in new age-discrimination lawsuit

They suggested Freshfields may quietly drop the issue if Mr Bloxham decides not to appeal. The deadline is in two weeks.

Mr Bloxham has not indicated whether he will appeal but, in a statement today, his lawyers said that he would "vigorously" defend the "wholly misconceived" costs application.

Freshfields said they had filed their costs application in line with the relevant deadline and declined to comment on their reasons or the amount of money they are seeking.

Under tribunal rules, the firm had until Tuesday to apply for Mr Bloxham to pay for their defence.

Employment tribunal cases differ from regular court hearings in that the winning side can apply for costs only if aspects of the claim were “misconceived” or “unreasonably pursued”. It is understood that Freshfields has applied for costs against Mr Bloxham on both grounds.

According to employment tribunal statistics, only 6 per cent of cases resulted in a costs order last year.

Mr Bloxham accused Freshfields of using an overhaul of its pension fund as a clandestine means of forcing out older partners.

It was the first big test of anti-age discrimination legislation since it was introduced last October.

During the six-day hearing in July, Mr Bloxham, who now works as a policyholder advocate for Prudential, the insurer, told the London Central Employment Tribunal that Freshfields had “closed its eyes” to age discrimination laws.

But last month the tribunal unanimously decided that Mr Bloxham’s claim was “not well-founded" and dismissed it.

Freshfields also confirmed today that Lois Moore, another former partner who had accused the firm of age-discrimination, had withdrawn her claim.

The employment tribunal had frozen the case until Mr Bloxham's had been decided as they concerned similar issues.

Explore Law

• Columnists

• Law Panel

• Law Reports

• Student Law

Times Recommends

• The best legal yarns this Christmas
• Legal school 'earned £1m by exploiting bar course'
• Axe may fall on 5,000 more City lawyers