Case 2201870/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Michael Lambrianos v Nowy Styl UK Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2201870/2022
- Decision date
- 10 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sutton KC
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Michael Lambrianos
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningFollowing the substantive judgment sent on 10 March 2023, the Tribunal recorded that the respondent owed Mr Michael Lambrianos outstanding commission of £716.40. This later decision concerned only cross-applications for costs: the claimant applied for £2,600 for counsel's fees, and the respondent opposed that application and sought £700 of its own costs in responding.
The Tribunal held that its power to award costs under Rule 76 was not engaged. It said the claim had substantially failed, that the findings in the claimant's favour represented only a very small part of what he had sought to recover, and that the respondent's concessions before and during the hearing were pragmatic and sensible and of a kind encouraged by the Tribunal. The Tribunal also found there was no proper ground for saying the respondent had acted unreasonably either in deciding to defend the claim or in the way its defence was conducted. Although it accepted that the respondent had been put to unnecessary expense by the claimant's costs application and said it saw the force of the respondent's objections, it declined to make a costs order for either party and refused both applications.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Claimant's application for costs under rule 76(1)(a) was refused; he had sought £2,600 for counsel's fees. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Respondent's application for costs was also refused; it had sought £700 in responding to the claimant's costs application. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 76(1)(a) Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- Rule 76
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.