Mr B Keeratinuntapreecha v AND Kasteel Collection Limited — 2021

At a preliminary hearing on 4 November 2021, the tribunal had already dismissed Mr Keeratinuntapreecha's claim under Rule 47 because he did not attend and had not complied with case management directions. The respondent's application for costs remained to be determined, and the tribunal directed written submissions so that the claimant had a reasonable opportunity to respond.

On 18 January 2022, Employment Judge Gray determined the costs application on the papers. The tribunal rejected the respondent's argument that the claim had no reasonable prospect of success from the outset under Rule 76(1)(b), saying that further determination of the underlying issues would have been needed. It also noted that the claimant had not been subject to a deposit order or strike out warning at the earlier stage.

The tribunal did find that the claimant's failure to engage with requests for further information, his failure to provide a witness statement, his non-attendance at the second preliminary hearing, and his failure to tell the tribunal or respondent that he was no longer proceeding amounted to unreasonable conduct under Rule 76(1)(a). Exercising its discretion under Rule 78(1)(a), it ordered him to pay the respondent £195.30, made up of £43.40 for preparation, £108.50 for attendance, and £43.40 for emails connected with the costs application. The tribunal referred to Raggett v John Lewis plc when noting that VAT should not be included where recoverable.