Mr J Kit v Banana UK Property Investment & Management Company Ltd Application in writing — 2024

Following the claimant's successful underlying claims for unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, and non-payment of accrued but untaken holiday leave, the tribunal dealt with a written application for costs and a wasted costs application. The respondent and Mr Man did not attend the hearing, no response was filed to the written application, and the tribunal proceeded in their absence under Rule 47.

The tribunal held that the respondent had engaged Rule 76(1)(a) and Rule 76(1)(b) by advancing fabricated allegations that Mr Kit had been dishonest, including allegations of unauthorised access to company funds and an unauthorised bonus, when those allegations had already been found untrue and manufactured after dismissal. It found that the false defence was advanced to delay the case and harass the claimant, and that it caused significant additional costs. In exercising its discretion the tribunal considered the claimant's costs warning, the parties' relative means, and the broad-brush approach to quantification, and it excluded costs incurred before the 25 April 2023 preliminary hearing because the respondent's earlier employee/service defence had been genuine though erroneous.

The tribunal awarded £4,502 inclusive of VAT, representing the third and fourth bills from 25 April 2023 onwards. It did not allow recovery of pro bono work, and it did not award the full amount claimed of £5,954.60.

The tribunal refused the wasted costs application against Mr Man. It held that Rule 80(3) prevented a wasted costs order because Mr Man was acting in a capacity that included being an employee of the respondent, and it also said that, even if the jurisdiction were available, it would not be just in the circumstances to make such an order.