Mr Luke Joseph Decker v Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan UK LLP and 1 other — 2025

The hearing dealt with two interlocutory matters: whether to attach conditions to the existing disclosure order, and the claimant's application for costs. Employment Judge David Hughes declined to add conditions to the disclosure order. He recorded that the respondents had previously sought extensions of the disclosure timetable without asking for those conditions, and only later raised concerns that disclosure would include privileged and confidential client material.

On costs, the judge found that the respondents had acted unreasonably in delaying for a significant period before raising privilege concerns that should have been identified at the earlier case management hearing before EJ Woodhead, and in pursuing a strike-out application while still in breach of the disclosure order. He did not accept that the length of the correspondence, taken by itself, was unreasonable. He also found that the claimant had acted unreasonably by withholding disclosure in response to the respondents' position, although he accepted that a mental health crisis explained some of the claimant's lack of engagement.

Applying the costs discretion and the authorities he cited, the judge concluded that a costs award was justified. He declined to award costs for the correspondence or for the later preliminary hearing that had to be listed, but held that the hearing time spent on the disclosure issue should be compensated in part. He summarily assessed the award at £5,400 inclusive of VAT for counsel and £2,971 inclusive of VAT for solicitors, making a total of £8,371 inclusive of VAT, payable by both respondents jointly and severally.