Case 1801437/2018 · Employment Tribunal
In person v Mr R Anderson, consultant — 2019
- Case reference
- 1801437/2018
- Decision date
- 16 July 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rostant REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs Harrop-Rhodes and Mr Jackson brought consolidated claims of unfair dismissal and sex discrimination against Door Solutions Ltd and Mr D Watkins. The sex discrimination case included 19 allegations of sexual harassment against Mr Watkins, 16 by Mrs Harrop-Rhodes and three by Mr Jackson. At the July 2018 hearing the Tribunal was dealing with the respondent's application for third-party disclosure of text-message records said to show the full exchange between Mrs Harrop-Rhodes and Mr Watkins; after an adjournment for that purpose, the claimants withdrew their claims on 2 August 2018 and the Tribunal later dismissed them on withdrawal.
On the claimants' application for a preparation time order, the Tribunal found several failures to comply with case management orders, including late disclosure and failure to provide a paginated file by the ordered date. It accepted that the respondents' conduct in those respects was unreasonable, but rejected some of the other complaints. Applying the Rule 79(2) hourly rate of £33, it assessed six hours' preparation time and ordered the respondents to pay £198, split equally between the two claimants.
On the respondents' costs application, the Tribunal accepted that the costs incurred by Peninsula on behalf of the first respondent could be recovered, but reduced the claimed hourly rates to the Rule 79(2) rate because Mr Anderson was acting as a lay representative and Miss Hassina Khan was a trainee solicitor who did not meet the rule 74(2) definition of a legal representative. It found, on the balance of probabilities, that the claimants withdrew because they were concerned that disclosure of the full text exchange would undermine the claims, and held that the claims had been pursued in an unreasonable and/or vexatious manner. After considering means, including Mr Jackson's £15,000 savings and Mrs Harrop-Rhodes's net monthly income of about £1,400 with her husband taking home about £1,600, the Tribunal ordered each claimant to pay half of £3,148.05, namely £1,574.03.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Claim withdrawn on 2 August 2018 before any merits determination; the Tribunal later dismissed it on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | Included 19 allegations of sexual harassment against Mr Watkins (16 by Mrs Harrop-Rhodes and 3 by Mr Jackson); withdrawn on 2 August 2018 before any merits determination and later dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 76 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- Rule 79(2) Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- balance of probabilities
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.