Mrs R Sweet v Fairford Opticians Limited — 2023

This judgment dealt only with the Respondent’s application for a Preparation Time Order after the Claimant’s unfair dismissal claim had previously been struck out. The application was determined on the papers. The Respondent argued that the claim had no reasonable prospect of success and that the Claimant had acted unreasonably in conducting the proceedings.

The tribunal set out the Rule 76 framework, including the requirement to consider whether the relevant ground was made out and, if so, whether to exercise discretion to award costs or preparation time. It also noted the need to assess the prospect-of-success question by reference to what was known or reasonably available at the point of issue, and referred to Radia v Jefferies International Ltd, Yerrakalva v Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council and AQ Ltd v Holden.

On no reasonable prospect of success, the tribunal held that it was not persuaded that the claim was obviously hopeless when issued. It accepted that there remained a factual dispute about the telephone call made by the Claimant, which was central to whether dismissal was justified. The tribunal noted the later guilty plea in parallel criminal proceedings, but treated that as material to the later strike-out decision rather than the correct test for the costs application at issue.

The tribunal rejected the Respondent’s other complaints, including the skeletal claim form, the absence of documentary evidence or witness evidence, the narrowing of the procedural case, the allegation about a relationship with a director, the alleged failure to copy correspondence, the Claimant’s non-attendance at part of an earlier preliminary hearing, the allegations of harassing or abusive conduct, the alleged false statement that she was unemployed, and the text indicating an intention to drop the case. It found that these matters did not establish unreasonable conduct, and the application for a Preparation Time Order was dismissed. The tribunal added that, even if rule 76(1)(a) had been made out, it would not have exercised its discretion to award costs in the circumstances.