Case 2221536/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Zaba v Bidvest Noonan (UK) Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 2221536/2024
- Decision date
- 14 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Nicolle
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Zaba
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal awarded the Respondent costs of £3,500 plus VAT, totalling £4,200, for Counsel's brief fee for the hearing listed on 30 and 31 October 2024. In the alternative, it awarded the same sum against Employment and Wales Employment Advice Limited as wasted costs. The Claimant and that representative were made jointly and severally liable.
The Tribunal found that the Claimant's postponement application was made on 24 October 2024 and was granted on 29 October 2024 after further information was provided about flights booked on 23 February 2024. The Claimant had not given the required seven days' notice and had not provided evidence that permission had been sought from the Tribunal or the authorities in Thailand to give evidence from abroad.
The Tribunal concluded that the belated postponement application was unreasonable under Rule 76(1)(a), because even without the stated internet connectivity issues, the absence of the necessary permissions to give evidence from abroad would have prevented the hearing from taking place. It also found that the failure to give seven days' notice provided additional grounds for a costs award under Rule 76(1)(c).
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | This judgment determines a costs and/or wasted costs application arising from a postponed hearing, not the substantive unfair dismissal or breach of contract claims. | Upheld | — | £4,200 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,200
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
9 references- Rule 76(1)(a) Employment Tribunals (Constitution & Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- Rule 76(1)(c) Employment Tribunals (Constitution & Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- Rule 80 Employment Tribunals (Constitution & Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- Rule 30A
- Oni v Unison two-stage exercise
- Gee v Shell
- Lodwick v Southwark
- AQ Ltd v Holden
- Yerrakalva v Barnsley MBC
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.