Miss M Stanescu v Crystal Chambers and 2 others — 2023

This was a judgment on costs applications only, following the claimant's withdrawal of her substantive claim at the strike-out hearing. Each respondent sought either a costs order or a preparation time order, relying on rule 74(2)(a) and (b) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. The tribunal applied the three-stage costs approach, considered the authorities on vexatious and unreasonable conduct, and emphasised that costs orders in the Employment Tribunal remain exceptional.

For Crystal, the tribunal first extended time for the costs application, which had been made only a few minutes late and was explained by IT issues. On the merits, the judge held that he could not say, without hearing evidence, that the claimant had no reasonable prospect of showing worker or employee status, that any time-limit point necessarily defeated the claim, or that a TUPE transfer to Crystal could not be established. The tribunal also rejected the submission that the claimant's receipt of Universal Credit on a self-employed basis, or the inconsistencies in her pleaded dates, were enough on their own to show that she was acting vexatiously or unreasonably.

Cohesion's application was refused for similar reasons. The judge accepted that the claim against Cohesion appeared to be significantly out of time, but held that the claimant's explanation for delay could not be assessed without hearing her evidence. On the substantive issues, the tribunal noted that the claimant had worked at Cohesion's Manchester office in some capacity and had been paid, so the claim was not so weak that it could be said to have no reasonable prospect of success on the papers alone.

Mr Sheikh's application was also refused. The tribunal accepted that the claim against him was out of time, but again held that it could not conclude, without evidence, that the claimant could not satisfy the statutory tests for an out-of-time claim. It rejected the reliance on Pryce v Baxterstorey, noting that Abel Estate Agent Ltd v Reynolds had held that a failure to comply with early conciliation does not make a claim a nullity, and that Clark v Sainsbury's Supermarket Ltd preserved a wide discretion to waive non-compliance. The tribunal also found that Mr Sheikh had not shown that the claimant's conduct met the threshold for a costs order or PTO. Overall, all three applications were refused and no money was awarded.