Mr R Allan v United Education Projects Limited AT A COSTS HEARING — 2023

This was a costs hearing before Employment Judge Lancaster on 12 May 2023, at which the claimant's application for a preparation time order was refused. The claimant had been a litigant in person throughout. The judgment recites that the underlying claim had been presented on 21 December 2022, that the respondent had not filed a response, and that a rule 21 judgment had already been issued on 16 March 2023 in the sum of £379.63, with additional heads such as interest, future loss, injury to feelings, and compensation for stress not allowed.

The claimant later applied for a preparation time order first quantified at 100.05 hours at £41 per hour, then amended to 29 hours and £1,189. The tribunal set out rule 76 and rule 79, and referred to Ms C Sutton v The Ranch Ltd. It held that failing to present any response was not, by itself, unreasonable conduct in the way the proceedings were conducted for the purposes of rule 76(1)(a). The tribunal also said that if a response had been filed, it would have been legitimate to challenge the stress-related element for want of jurisdiction and to ask for clarification of the monetary calculation.

The tribunal found that the claimant had incurred no additional cost because the absence of a response did not require him to do more than was necessary to establish the sum owed. It accepted that the matter had been stressful and time-consuming for the claimant, but observed that the number of hours claimed was greater than it would regard as reasonable even if the calculations were complex. On that basis, and applying Sutton, the preconditions for a preparation time order were not met and the application was refused.