Ms A Ali v Petrie Tucker and Partners trading as My Dentist PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2023

This was a preliminary hearing on 15 November 2023 after the final hearing, which had been due to start that day and last eight days, was postponed. No strike-out application was pursued, and the tribunal did not determine the underlying substantive claim; it considered only the respondent's application for costs under Rule 76 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013.

Employment Judge Davies found that the conduct of the claimant and/or her representative was unreasonable in several respects. The tribunal identified failures to respond to repeated correspondence about a missing email chain and an audio recording, a delay in raising issues arising from the claimant's medical appointments, and a failure to communicate properly about exchanging witness statements in the run-up to the hearing. The judge said that this conduct led directly to the respondent incurring additional costs and to the last-minute postponement of the hearing.

Applying Rules 76 and 84 and the guidance in Yerrakalva v Barnsley MBC and Arrowsmith v Nottingham Trent University, the tribunal concluded that a costs order was appropriate. The respondent had not produced a detailed schedule of costs, but the judge accepted £1,320 for preparation and attendance at the preliminary hearing at £220 per hour, and estimated further correspondence and disclosure costs at around £300 to £500. Taking account of the claimant's assumed modest means, the tribunal ordered a contribution of £1,000 rather than the full amount sought.