Case 2602216/2017 · Employment Tribunal

Mr C Golding v I 4 C Executive Search Limited — 2019

Case reference: 2602216/2017
Decision date: 4 September 2019
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Hutchinson
Venue: Lincoln

Indexed: 22 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr C Golding

Respondent

I 4 C Executive Search Limited

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

This judgment concerned applications arising from the postponement of the final hearing listed for 12 and 13 December 2018. The underlying case had been brought for unfair dismissal and breach of contract in relation to notice pay, but those merits were not decided in this judgment. The hearing was postponed after the respondent said its main witness, Lee Hancock, was unfit to attend because of back pain, and the tribunal later considered the claimant's strike-out, wasted costs and costs applications.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

This case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Other	Application to strike out the response under Rule 37; dismissed after the tribunal accepted that Mr Hancock was genuinely incapacitated and found no misleading conduct.	Dismissed	—	—
Other	Application for a wasted costs order under Rule 80; dismissed because the representative acted on instructions and was not found to have acted improperly, unreasonably or negligently.	Dismissed	—	—
Other	Costs order for the adjournment of the 12 December 2018 hearing; the reasons state £300 plus VAT, and the judgment ordered £360.00.	Upheld	—	£360

Remedy

Monetary award

Total award: £360; across all upheld claims

Legal tests applied

5 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.