Ms M Sindze v Corps Security (UK) Limited — 2020

The tribunal considered the Respondent's application for costs under Rule 76, in which it argued that the Claimant had acted unreasonably in seeking to amend her claim, by delaying that application and by failing to plead it with sufficient clarity. The Claimant, who was unrepresented, objected to the application.

The tribunal found that the postponement of the hearing due to start on 5 September 2019 was not the Claimant's fault and that she had not acted unreasonably in connection with it. Although there had been delay before the formal amendment application was submitted, the tribunal noted that the Claimant had previously indicated to the tribunal that she wished to amend and had a written document in June 2019 that she proposed to discuss.

The tribunal accepted that the amendment application lacked sufficient precision and clarity as to dates and alleged Equality Act breaches, but found that it was not incoherent and contained an easy-to-follow narrative. Taking account of the Claimant's unrepresented status and her stated disabilities including dyslexia, the tribunal concluded that she had not acted vexatiously, abusively, disruptively or otherwise unreasonably. The fact that the amendment application failed did not, by itself, justify a costs order, and the Respondent's costs application was therefore refused.