Ms E Aghaki First v Habib Bank Zurick plc Second Respondent: Mr M Mehdi Third respondents: Mr M Butt JUDGEMENT AT A PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2020

This was a preliminary-hearing costs judgment before Employment Judge Kelly sitting alone. The hearing considered the respondents' application for costs arising from the claimant's amendment application of 6 May 2020 and from alleged breaches of tribunal orders and other unreasonable conduct up to 12 November 2020. The tribunal heard evidence from the claimant, reviewed the bundle, and considered the respondents' written costs warning and schedules.

On the amendment issue, the tribunal refused to make a costs order. It held that the claimant had not acted unreasonably in making an application to amend after failing to include all the particulars she wished to rely on in her claim. The tribunal said the medical evidence did not prove she could not have included those matters earlier, but it was an arguable point, the application was not hopeless, and the fact that the respondents had warned of a costs application did not by itself provide grounds for costs.

On the separate issue of compliance with orders, the tribunal found that the claimant breached the order of 15 July 2020 by failing to provide a schedule of loss by 31 July 2020 and by failing to reply to the respondents' request for further and better particulars by 11 September 2020. The tribunal accepted that the claimant later referred to mental state and loss of accommodation, but noted that she had not told the respondents in advance that there would be a delay or applied for an extension of time. It also held that her short-notice application to adjourn the 13 November 2020 hearing, after it was converted to a CVP hearing, was not unreasonable and did not justify costs.

The tribunal decided that there were grounds for a costs award in principle in respect of the non-compliance with the order, taking into account the claimant's ability to pay. It found that she had £7,000 in savings and regular spending on non-essential items, and concluded that she could afford a costs order. However, it found the respondents' claimed figure disproportionate, allowed only the legitimate work identified in the judgment, accepted the associate rate of £220 per hour, disallowed VAT, and ordered payment of £506.00 in total.