Miss A Tape v Project 11 (Marsden) Limited This has been a hearing on the papers directed by me but to which no party objected or sought a hearing. — 2020

This written decision concerns a costs application after an earlier Skype hearing on 1 June 2020, at which the tribunal had already given partial judgment for the claimant orally. The judge recorded that the claimant had brought complaints of pregnancy-related discrimination, unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal, but the written reasons here are directed to whether the respondent should pay the claimant's wasted costs for the hearing. The tribunal noted that pre-proceedings service problems at the registered office were not a proper basis for a costs order under Rule 76(1).

The tribunal found that the respondent engaged in unreasonable conduct after proceedings had started by failing to deal with post-service correspondence, failing to contact the tribunal, and failing to attend the hearing to seek information, notwithstanding that its premises were being attended sporadically. The judge said that this conduct caused the claimant to incur thrown away costs for representation at the 1 June 2020 hearing and exercised the discretion to make a costs order.

On amount, the claimant had sought £2,499.84 including VAT on the basis of a Grade A fee earner rate of £217 per hour. The tribunal considered that preparation and attendance at a three-hour undefended hearing justified a Grade B fee earner rate, not Grade A, and assessed the recoverable work at four hours at £192 plus VAT. The respondent was therefore ordered to pay £768 plus VAT. The tribunal said the remaining documentary and preparatory work was not thrown away because the case was still listed for a later CVP hearing on 21 October 2020.