Case 2303301/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs. S Wignarajah v John Lewis plc — 2024
- Case reference
- 2303301/2022
- Decision date
- 5 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cawthray No
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs. S Wignarajah
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis is a costs judgment issued by Employment Judge Cawthray following the Claimant's withdrawal, on 13 November 2023, of her unlawful deduction from wages claim against John Lewis PLC. The Respondent had maintained throughout that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction under section 14(1)(a) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 because the disputed payments were overpayments it was seeking to recover, and it had issued costs warning letters on 28 October 2022 and 1 November 2023. The Claimant, who was unrepresented until the Free Representation Unit took her case on 26 January 2023, withdrew the claim the day before the scheduled two-day final hearing.
The Judge found that Rules 76(1)(a) and 76(1)(b) of the Employment Tribunal Rules were engaged, concluding that the Claimant had acted unreasonably and vexatiously in bringing and continuing the claim and that the claim had no reasonable prospect of success. The Judge noted that a proper consideration of the Claimant's position, including by her representative on appointment, should have led to the view that the claim could not succeed, and that the matter was not a complex discrimination case but concerned money said to be owed. The Judge declined to determine the application under Rule 76(1)(c) regarding postponement, given the other grounds were clearly engaged.
In exercising discretion on amount, the Judge took into account the Claimant's limited means (noting she had since been dismissed and was working two part-time jobs, with modest income and no assets or savings), the fact that costs are exceptional and not punitive, and that the Claimant had originally been a litigant in person. Applying a broad-brush summary assessment, the Judge ordered the Claimant to pay £500 to the Respondent as a contribution to costs, a small proportion of the Respondent's schedule of £12,937.50 inclusive of VAT.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The Claimant withdrew her unlawful deduction from wages claim on 13 November 2023, the day before the listed final hearing, accepting that the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction under section 14 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. This judgment is a costs judgment determined on paper following that withdrawal; the substantive claim itself was not adjudicated on its merits. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- Rule 76(1)(a)
- Rule 76(1)(b)
- Rule 76(1)(c)
- section 14(1)(a) Employment Rights Act 1996
- ET Marler
- AG v Barker
- Dyer v SOS
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.