Case 2205767/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S. Sameni Fallah v Outlier Ventures Operations Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 2205767/2023
- Decision date
- 23 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Flanagan
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S. Sameni Fallah
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis judgment concerned the Claimant’s application for costs under Rule 76 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013, not the substantive merits of the underlying claims. Employment Judge Flanagan, sitting alone, held that the application was well founded and that the Claimant should receive costs in principle in relation to the preparation and attendance for the preliminary hearing on 2 February 2024.
The Tribunal found that the Respondent had acted unreasonably by only conceding the issue of disability on 31 January 2024. It also found unreasonable conduct in the Respondent’s management of disclosure, which meant that issues still had to be resolved at the preliminary hearing.
No sum was fixed in the judgment. The Claimant was directed to serve a Schedule of Costs by 9 February 2024, the Respondent was to indicate any disputed items by 16 February 2024, and the parties were to tell the Tribunal by 23 February 2024 whether a hearing was needed to determine the amount. If there was no objection, the Tribunal would decide the costs amount on the papers after 23 February 2024; otherwise a further hearing would be arranged.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Rule 76 costs application. The Tribunal found the application well founded and awarded costs in principle, but the amount was not determined in this judgment and was to be dealt with after a Schedule of Costs process. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 76 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013
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.