This question refers to the case MacPherson v. BNP Paribas IRLR 558.
Mr McPherson withdrew his claim on medical grounds. In paragraph 31 he appears to be implicitly criticised by the Court of Appeal for not providing BNP Paribas with a warning that he is thinking of withdrawing the case. It is listed as unreasonable conduct "that he had given the impression... that he was pursuing the complaint and allowed BNP Paribas to incur considerable expense in preparing the case on that basis while ... he had been considering with his GP ... the question of abandoning proceedings on health grounds. There was no no hint to the tribunal or BNP Paribas of this possibility before notice of withdrawal"
Why is it necessary to provide a reason for withdrawal?
In this case, what sort of warning could possibly have been given that withdrawal was being contemplated?
Are there any relevant practice directions?
Mr McPherson's other behaviour mentioned in the case is unreasonable but I fail to grasp the Court's point in this respect.