Mr. M. King v 1.Profusion Media Limited and 4 others — 2024

This is a costs judgment, not a determination of the substantive employment claims. The Claimant, formerly employed by the First Respondent as Data Strategy Director, had brought claims following his dismissal on 1 December 2022. Three preliminary hearings were held, with the December 2023 hearing addressing the Claimant's unsuccessful application to amend his claim, the Respondent's unsuccessful strike-out application, and the Claimant's unsuccessful application to add a further respondent.

The Tribunal (Employment Judge Woodhead) considered the Respondents' costs application under Rule 76(1)(a) of the Tribunal Rules 2013. The Judge found that jurisdiction to make a costs award was engaged in respect of the Claimant's conduct after 11 December 2023, when the Respondents had warned him they would pursue costs. The Judge concluded the Claimant had acted unreasonably in presenting a lengthy amendment application at the December preliminary hearing which failed to comply with the guidance EJ Spencer had given him at the October hearing to be clear and brief.

In exercising discretion the Judge took into account that the Claimant had bi-polar disorder and ADHD (accepted as disabilities), that he was not a lawyer, and that he was not deliberately unreasonable. The Respondents had sought £8,550.50 in costs. The Judge awarded £700, equating to counsel fees for the December preliminary hearing less £700 to reflect that the hearing would have been needed for other purposes. The Claimant was not ordered to pay VAT as the First Respondent is VAT-registered.