Ms A. Parrish v Olive Catering Services Tribunal: Midlands West (on papers) — 2024

The Tribunal was dealing with the respondent's application for costs after an earlier preliminary hearing on 19 July 2024 had struck out Ms Parrish's underlying claim for non-compliance with a Tribunal order under Rule 37(1)(c) and because it had not been actively pursued under Rule 37(1)(d). The earlier decision had not been based on the claim having no reasonable prospect of success. In the costs application, the respondent relied on warning letters dated 15 March and 18 April 2024 and a schedule of costs totalling £1,925 plus VAT.

The application was determined on the papers. The judge accepted that the Rule 76(1)(a) threshold of unreasonable conduct was met because the claimant had failed to engage with correspondence, comply with case management orders, or actively pursue the claim, although the judge considered illness to be the likeliest explanation. The claimant had emailed the Tribunal on 26 April 2024 referring to being out of work and unwell, and on 19 July 2024 apologised for not attending the hearing and asked for more time.

The Tribunal nevertheless declined to make a costs order. It noted that costs are the exception in employment tribunals, that the claimant was unrepresented, that the respondent's warning letters did not expressly warn that failure to respond to correspondence or Tribunal orders could result in a costs award, and that there was no information about the claimant's means. The respondent's application for costs was therefore dismissed.