Ms D Sangster v Stopwatch UK — 2024

This is a costs judgment issued by Employment Judge Abbott sitting alone in chambers at London South. The Respondent (Stopwatch UK) applied under Rule 76(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 for costs incurred in resisting the Claimant's application to amend her claim to add a complaint of discrimination arising from disability under s.15 of the Equality Act 2010. That amendment application had been refused on 8 November 2024 for reasons given orally that day.

Applying the three-stage approach to Rule 76, the Judge found the amendment application was without merit and that the Claimant, being represented by solicitors, should reasonably have realised this. The Judge identified factors including the late timing of the application after preparations for the final hearing were complete, the introduction of a new s.15 claim materially expanding the factual enquiry, time-limit problems (the claim being raised more than 15 months after the Claimant left her employment), a five-month delay after solicitors came on record, prejudice to the Respondent (a charity) of reopening disclosure shortly before the final hearing, and the limited incremental value of the proposed claim given other live claims. The Judge concluded that Rule 76(1)(a) was engaged and that, in the exercise of discretion, a costs order was appropriate.

On quantification, the Respondent claimed £2,100 (12 hours at £175 per hour). The Judge found the hourly rate reasonable and well below the applicable guideline rate, and that requesting an oral hearing of the amendment application was reasonable. The Claimant had provided no evidence of means despite a direction to do so, so means were not taken into account. Applying a small reduction to the hours claimed, the Judge ordered the Claimant to pay the Respondent £1,750.