Case 2301150/2017 · Employment Tribunal
Ms L Coleman v Red Handling Limited and 1 other — 2020
- Case reference
- 2301150/2017
- Decision date
- 10 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge C Hyde
- Venue
- London South
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Ms L Coleman
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a costs hearing in case 2301150/2017 before Employment Judge C Hyde sitting alone at London South on 8 January 2020. The first respondent did not attend, having told the tribunal by email that it did not intend to do so. The second respondent appeared by telephone conference call through Mr A O'Neill, solicitor, and the claimant was represented by Mr Langi, solicitor.
The tribunal ordered Messrs OH Parsons, Solicitors to pay the second respondent wasted costs in the sum of £7,359.29 forthwith. The written record records the order but does not set out the tribunal's oral reasons for making it.
By consent, the second respondent's name was amended from "Omni Serv Limited" to "ABM Aviation UK Limited". No substantive liability findings on the underlying employment claims are set out in this written record.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | This was a costs hearing. The tribunal ordered Messrs OH Parsons, Solicitors to pay the second respondent wasted costs in the sum of £7,359.29 forthwith. The written record does not set out the tribunal's oral reasons. | Upheld | — | £7,359 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £7,359
- across all upheld claims
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.