Mrs T Curran v St Vincent de Paul Society (England and Wales) — 2022

The claimant's employment ended on 19 September 2019 and she presented her ET1 on 23 December 2019 after Acas early conciliation. The tribunal recorded that the case was listed for a case management discussion on 19 June 2020, that an agenda had asked the parties to identify any amendments and the issues for determination, and that the claimant was legally represented throughout. The tribunal considered that any deficiencies in the pleading should have been addressed at that stage or at the first preliminary hearing.

The judgment records repeated failures to provide the further information ordered by the tribunal. It noted that there was no rational explanation for why the mislabelling of a harassment claim as victimisation had not been corrected, that no protected act had been identified in the original ET1, and that the grievance point did not identify victimisation or other prohibited conduct. The tribunal also said that the claimant had not clearly set out which condition or conditions were relied on as a disability, and that there remained confusion over whether the dismissal claim was unfair or constructively unfair.

By the time of the hearing on 20 September 2022, the tribunal said there was still no written application to amend and that it was not clear what claims were being pursued. It found that the claimant had been given six opportunities to clarify the case, but had not done so, and that this was unreasonable conduct, a failure to comply with tribunal orders, and a failure to actively pursue the claim. The tribunal considered there was significant prejudice to the respondent because it still did not know what case it had to meet, and it struck the claim out in its entirety. The final hearing listed for 20 February 2023 was removed from the list.

The respondent also applied for wasted costs against the claimant's representative. The tribunal accepted that the conduct of the proceedings had been unreasonable for the purposes of Rule 76, because the required information and proper particulars had not been provided in line with tribunal orders. However, it held that the high threshold for wasted costs under Rule 80 was not met: the conduct was not shown to be improper, unreasonable in the Rule 80 sense, negligent, or an abuse of process. The wasted costs application therefore failed.