Mr S Althaf v Southend University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust — 2019

At the hearing on 15 January 2019, Employment Judge Prichard heard the respondent's application for costs in the consolidated cases 3200410/2017 and 3200438/2018. The respondent sought £5,435.70 for costs incurred since the last hearing, saying the claimant's conduct had made the hearing necessary and had been avoidable. The judge recorded that the respondent had repeatedly extended deadlines and had given the claimant opportunities to respond to correspondence and comply with orders.

The tribunal found that the criterion of unreasonableness in rule 76(1)(a) was satisfied. It relied on the claimant's repeated failure to comply, the claimant's statement that he had a few emails he had not dared to look at, and the view that the respondent's solicitors had taken a forbearing stance while successive failures to comply continued. The judge concluded that it would be wrong not to make a costs order.

The tribunal then considered the claimant's means under rule 84. It found that he had no substantial means, lived off his partner, had no property in the UK or India, and lived in rented accommodation costing £1,950 per month. Although the respondent had sought £5,435.70, the judge decided not to award the full amount and instead ordered the claimant to pay £3,000 as a contribution to the respondent's costs of the hearing.