Mr O Justice v Moon Developments Limited — 2019

This judgment dealt only with the respondent's application for a preparation time order after the claimant had withdrawn the case. The claimant's email of 9 December 2019 said the withdrawal was based on the view that it would be uneconomic to instruct a representative for the hearing. The tribunal found that explanation did not address why the notification came so late, and noted that the claim had been issued in January 2019 and listed for final hearing in August 2019.

The tribunal also recorded that Mr Scappaticci had represented the claimant at the August 2019 case management preliminary hearing, so it was not clear why he could not do so again at the final hearing. The claimant's general denial of Mr Newman's allegations did not answer the specific issues raised in the earlier reasons. The tribunal concluded that the claimant's conduct amounted to unreasonable conduct in the way proceedings had been conducted for the purpose of rule 76(1)(a).

Applying the two-stage approach under rule 76(1), and referring to Yerrakalva v Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council 2012 ICR 420, CA, the tribunal held that it was appropriate to exercise its discretion in favour of the respondent. No representations were made about the claimant's means, and the tribunal assumed that the claimant had the means to meet the award. It therefore ordered the claimant to pay the respondent £2,145 in respect of preparation time.