Case 2410174/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Dr S Kumar v Care Quality Commission — 2020
- Case reference
- 2410174/2019
- Decision date
- 3 June 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ainscough JUDGMENT
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Dr S Kumar
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent applied for wasted costs after the claimant was permitted to amend his claim to rely on additional qualifying disclosures. The respondent argued that the claimant's representative had failed to provide a timely and adequate explanation for the amendment application, and said the cost of defending the amendment application was £2,103.
The Tribunal found that the claimant's representative's late explanation and failure to provide supporting evidence for the amendment application amounted to unreasonable behaviour. However, it found that this conduct did not cause the respondent to incur unnecessary costs.
The Tribunal concluded that a preliminary hearing was inevitable because of the respondent's stance in correspondence and at the hearing, including its objection to the amendment on the basis of additional witness evidence and alleged prejudice. The application for wasted costs was therefore refused.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment determined the respondent's application for wasted costs under the Employment Tribunal Rules, not the substantive protected disclosure detriment claim. The respondent sought £2,103 in costs; the application was refused. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- Rule 80 Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- Rule 82 Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- Ridehalgh v Horsefield three-stage test
- KL Law Ltd v Wincanton Group Ltd and another
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.