Case 2400189/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms C Havers v Cheshire West and Chester Council — 2024
- Case reference
- 2400189/2022
- Decision date
- 23 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ainscough REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- Liverpool
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms C Havers
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment concerned the respondent's application for costs following earlier procedural history in which the claimant's claims included unlawful deduction from wages, detriments because of protected disclosure or health and safety concerns, and an amendment to add automatic unfair constructive dismissal because of a protected disclosure.
The Tribunal found that from October 2023 the claimant's conduct in the proceedings was unreasonable, including repeated postponement applications and failure to provide the medical evidence required to support inability to attend hearings. That conduct caused unnecessary costs to the respondent from October 2023.
The Tribunal nevertheless declined to make a costs order. It took account of the claimant being a litigant in person, her ill health and difficulty obtaining conclusive medical evidence, her means, and the absence of a breakdown of the respondent's costs.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The costs judgment records that the claimant complained about unlawful deduction from wages. It also refers to dismissal of the claim following an Unless Order/non-attendance context, but does not determine the merits. | Struck out | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The costs judgment records complaints of detriments because of a protected disclosure/health and safety concerns, and later permission to amend to include automatic unfair constructive dismissal because of a protected disclosure. The merits were not determined in this costs judgment. | Struck out | — | — |
| Constructive dismissal | The judgment records that the claimant was permitted to amend the claim to include automatic unfair constructive dismissal because of a protected disclosure. The costs judgment concerns the respondent's costs application and does not decide this claim on its merits. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- rule 77 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- costs are the exception rather than the rule
- costs are compensatory and not punitive
- overriding objective
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.