Case 2207277/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Ramm v Home Office — 2022
- Case reference
- 2207277/2021
- Decision date
- 24 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Klimov
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Ramm
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant brought a disability discrimination claim which was prima facie out of time. A preliminary hearing was listed to decide jurisdiction and whether time should be extended on a just and equitable basis. After telling the Respondent on 12 May 2022 that he would not pursue the case through the courts, the Claimant did not formally withdraw the claim, did not respond to further correspondence, and did not attend the preliminary hearing. The Tribunal dismissed the claim upon withdrawal under Rule 52.
The Respondent applied for costs on the grounds of unreasonable conduct and no reasonable prospect of success. The Tribunal rejected the no reasonable prospect ground, finding that the out-of-time issue could not be determined without considering relevant facts and hearing from witnesses. It found, however, that the Claimant acted unreasonably after 12 May 2022 by not formally withdrawing, not complying with orders, ignoring correspondence, and not joining the hearing when asked.
The Tribunal decided it was just and proper to make a costs order, but found the Respondent's claimed costs of £19,739.10 excessive for a preliminary hearing on a time issue. It awarded Counsel's fee of £585.60 and one third of the remaining legal costs, producing a total costs order of £6,970.10 payable by the Claimant to the Respondent.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The underlying disability discrimination claim was dismissed upon withdrawal under Rule 52 after the Claimant told the Tribunal clerk he was not pursuing the claim. The Tribunal did not determine the merits or the time-limit issue. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
| Other | Respondent's costs application under Rule 76(1)(a) succeeded in part. The Rule 76(1)(b) ground, that the claim had no reasonable prospect of success, failed. | Upheld | — | £6,970 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,970
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
16 references- Rule 52 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- Rule 76(1)(a) Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- Rule 76(1)(b) Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- Rule 78(1) Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- Rule 84 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- Yerrakalva v Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council
- Haydar v Pennine Acute NHS Trust
- AQ Ltd v Holden
- Scott v Russell
- Dyer v Secretary of State for Employment
- McPherson v BNP Paribas
- Scott v Inland Revenue Commissioners
- Radia v Jefferies International Ltd
- Lodwick v Southwark London Borough Council
- Raveneau v London Borough of Brent
- Doyle v North West London Hospitals NHS Trust
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.