No appearance For the v Mr Iain Lovejoy (Legal Executive) — 2022

The claimant brought an unfair dismissal claim arising from his dismissal on 23 July 2020 for misconduct. The respondent said he had been dismissed on notice because he was already subject to a final written warning for similar misconduct, and that the general manager could not hear the appeal because of earlier involvement in the disciplinary process. By a judgment sent on 10 February 2022, the tribunal found that the claimant had not been unfairly dismissed and dismissed the claim.

This 6 January 2023 judgment concerned the respondent's costs application under Rule 76 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013. The respondent relied on a without prejudice save as to costs letter dated 12 February 2021 warning that the claim had no reasonable prospects, and said the claimant had been told he could withdraw to avoid a costs application. The claimant said on 14 January 2022 that he had received legal advice and would continue with the claim, but he did not respond to later enquiries about his means, did not comply with the tribunal's order for disclosure of his finances, and did not attend the costs hearing.

Applying the Rule 76 and 78 framework, the tribunal, with reference to the Milan v Capsticks three-stage approach and Yerrakalva, was satisfied that the claim had no reasonable prospects of success and that it was appropriate to award costs. It also accepted that the claimant's means should not be taken into account because he had failed to provide the ordered information, and that costs could be awarded notwithstanding the respondent's Make UK membership, relying on Taiwo. The tribunal excluded work done before 14 January 2022 because the respondent had said it would not pursue costs if the claim were withdrawn, disallowed 173 minutes for an unsuccessful strike out application and one minute for an auto-generated email, allowed 1.5 hours for the hearing, and ordered the claimant to pay £2,111.90 in costs.