Case 2204491/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Advani v 1st Respondent (“R1”): VC Capital Ltd 2nd Respondent (“R2”): VC Capital Management Ltd 3rd Respondent (“R3”): Audal Trading UK Ltd 4th Respondent (“R4”): Mr Cecil Anthony-Mike — 2022
- Case reference
- 2204491/2021
- Decision date
- 20 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Klimov Date
Parties
2 namedKey findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a costs judgment rather than a decision on the underlying employment claims. The Employment Judge found that Mr Advani had acted unreasonably in the way the part of the proceedings relating to preparation for the open preliminary hearing on 18 May 2022 had been conducted by him.
As a result, the tribunal ordered the claimant to pay the respondents' thrown away legal costs incurred for that hearing. The judgment did not fix a sum for those costs.
The tribunal said the exact amount would be determined at the open preliminary hearing listed for 5, 6 and 7 December 2022 if the parties did not agree it beforehand. Written reasons were not provided because reasons had been given orally at the hearing.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Costs order: the tribunal found the claimant had acted unreasonably in the preparation for the open preliminary hearing on 18 May 2022 and ordered him to pay the respondents' thrown away legal costs incurred for that hearing. The exact amount was left to be determined later if not agreed. | Upheld | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.