Case 1800949/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms I Florea v International Procurement and Logistics Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 1800949/2023
- Decision date
- 27 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shepherd JUDGMENT
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms I Florea
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant presented claims on 12 February 2023 for unfair dismissal, disability discrimination and arrears of holiday pay. The respondent pleaded that there was insufficient qualifying service for unfair dismissal, that the claims were out of time, that the early conciliation certificate was against the wrong party and that the claims had no reasonable prospect of success. The respondent sent a Calderbank costs warning letter, explaining its view of the weaknesses in the claim and inviting withdrawal, but the claimant did not respond.
On 13 April 2023 the Tribunal raised the possibility that the claimant might need an interpreter and/or permission to give evidence from abroad and ordered her to comment urgently. She did not do so. The claimant also failed to attend the Preliminary Hearing on 5 May 2023. Employment Judge O'Neill therefore made an unless order requiring the claimant by 5 June 2023 to confirm whether she intended to continue, whether she needed an interpreter, and to provide a statement explaining her non-attendance and prior non-compliance. The claimant did not comply, and on 19 June 2023 the Tribunal confirmed that the claims were dismissed with effect from 5 June 2023.
This judgment determines only the respondent's subsequent application for costs under rule 76(1)(a). The claimant was given an opportunity to comment on the application and to provide details of her means, but provided neither despite reminders. Employment Judge Shepherd cited rules 74, 76, 77, 78, 82 and 84, and authorities including Doyle, Omi, AQ Limited, Jilley and Yerraklava. The judge was satisfied that the claimant had acted unreasonably in the bringing and conduct of the proceedings, and that the respondent's claimed costs incurred since the costs warning letter were reasonable.
The respondent's application succeeded. The claimant was ordered to pay costs of £4,490 plus VAT, made up of solicitor's fees of £3,690 plus VAT and counsel's fees of £800 plus VAT. The claimant had not provided means evidence, so ability to pay could not be taken into account.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The underlying unfair dismissal claim was dismissed when the Tribunal confirmed on 19 June 2023 that, because the claimant had failed to comply with the unless order made after she did not attend the 5 May 2023 Preliminary Hearing, the claims were dismissed with effect from 5 June 2023. This judgment does not decide the merits of the unfair dismissal allegation. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The underlying disability discrimination claim was dismissed when the Tribunal confirmed on 19 June 2023 that, because the claimant had failed to comply with the unless order made after she did not attend the 5 May 2023 Preliminary Hearing, the claims were dismissed with effect from 5 June 2023. This judgment does not decide the merits of the discrimination allegation. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Holiday pay | The claim for arrears of holiday pay was dismissed when the Tribunal confirmed on 19 June 2023 that, because the claimant had failed to comply with the unless order made after she did not attend the 5 May 2023 Preliminary Hearing, the claims were dismissed with effect from 5 June 2023. This judgment does not decide the merits of the holiday pay allegation. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The respondent's application for costs under rule 76 succeeded. The tribunal ordered the claimant to pay £4,490 plus VAT, comprising solicitor's fees of £3,690 plus VAT and counsel's fees of £800 plus VAT. | Upheld | — | £4,490 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,490
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
13 references- rule 74(1) Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- rule 76(1)(a) Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- rule 76(1)(b) Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- rule 76(2) Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- rule 77
- rule 78(1)(a)
- rule 82
- rule 84
- Doyle v North West London Hospitals NHS Trust UKEAT/0271/11/RN
- Omi v Unison UKEAT/0370/14/LA
- AQ Limited v Holden [2012] IRLR 648
- Jilley v Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health NHS Trust UKEAT/0584/06
- Yerraklava v Barnsley MBC [2012] IRLR 78
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.