Ms T Brangman v Jewel Home Support Ltd — 2022

This was a costs decision made on the papers after the claimant’s substantive claim had already been dismissed on 10 October 2022 under rule 47 because she did not attend the hearing. The judge noted that the dismissal reasons should be read with the costs reasons and that the merits of the claimant’s complaints had not been considered at any hearing.

The respondent applied for costs under rule 76(1)(a) and (b), saying the claimant had acted unreasonably, had no reasonable prospect of success, had breached orders, had failed to attend two in-person hearings, and had repeatedly pursued default judgment applications. The tribunal declined to make an award on the no reasonable prospect of success ground because the complaints were not clear and the respondent had not explained that ground in detail, so the tribunal could not safely conclude that it was made out.

The tribunal did find unreasonable conduct in the claimant’s failure to attend the hearings on 9 May 2022 and 10 October 2022, and in her persistence with default judgment correspondence after being told the point was unsuccessful. It did not base costs on the allegation that she misled the tribunal, because the respondent had not identified that conduct with sufficient specificity and the judge did not make that finding.

No information about the claimant’s financial means was provided. The tribunal ordered a contribution to costs of £1,506, made up of £1,004 for four hours of Mr Timol’s time in relation to the missed hearings and £502 for two hours dealing with the default judgment correspondence. The judge did not add VAT because the respondent was assumed to be VAT-registered.