Case 2204845/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In person For v Mr M Hodson (Solicitor) — 2020
- Case reference
- 2204845/2019
- Decision date
- 12 March 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mr
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis document is a costs judgment, not a merits decision on the underlying employment claim. The tribunal recorded that standard directions were issued by letter dated 15 November 2019 and that the claimant received them. Those directions required the claimant to set out his remedy by 13 December 2019 and to send a list of documents by 24 January 2020.
The tribunal found that the respondent complied with the directions, but the claimant did not comply by the due dates or at all, despite what the judgment describes as numerous attempts by the respondent's solicitors to encourage him. The respondent's solicitors said they had incurred wasted and extra work, including in communicating with the claimant and compiling an indexed bundle that would now need revision.
Employment Judge Burns found that the solicitors had been put to at least £640 plus VAT in wasted and extra work as a result of the claimant's non-compliance. The judgment states that the claimant had conducted the case unreasonably and that it was just and equitable for him to reimburse the respondent. The order required payment of £640 plus VAT, stated as £768, by 26 March 2020.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | This document is a costs judgment only. It does not determine the substantive tribunal claim; it orders the claimant to pay the respondent's costs in the stated sum. | Other | — | £768 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £768
- across all upheld claims
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.