Claimant v Quality Solicitors A-Z Law and others — 2017

This judgment concerned the claimant's application for reconsideration of the Order on Detailed Costs Assessment dated 24 March 2017. The claimant said documentary evidence of the respondents' alleged misconduct, described in her application as vexatious, unreasonable and unlawful conduct, had not been considered at the detailed costs assessment hearing on 23 March 2017 or at any stage in the costs proceedings.

Employment Judge Andrews held that any alleged flaw in the earlier decision to award costs after the hearing on 15 March 2016 was a matter for reconsideration of that decision, which had already been sought and refused by Employment Judge Martin and was said to be the subject of an appeal. The present judgment dealt only with the alleged flaw in relation to the 23 March 2017 costs assessment.

The judge found that the claimant had been given the opportunity to put her evidence before the tribunal but did not do so. Although the claimant said she had sent an affidavit and exhibits by special delivery, no evidence was produced of the alleged attempted delivery, and at the hearing itself neither her consultant nor her sons referred to the affidavit. The judge also noted that the case management order and the respondent's correspondence made clear that no further evidence from the claimant was to be lodged for the assessment.

The judge concluded that, even if the material had been before the tribunal, it would not have been relevant to the exercise being undertaken because the decision to award costs had already been made and the issue at the assessment was the amount. The tribunal held that there was no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked, and the application for reconsideration was refused.