Case 3201896/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Hassaballa v Mid and South Essex University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust — 2022
- Case reference
- 3201896/2021
- Decision date
- 9 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge C Lewis
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Hassaballa
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was an application by the Respondent for wasted costs in relation to the Preliminary Hearing on 15 June 2022, which had been listed to determine the Claimant’s application to amend his claim. The Claimant’s solicitors later confirmed that they did not oppose the application and apologised for the unnecessary hearing.
Employment Judge C Lewis found that the Respondent had been put to unnecessary expense in preparing for and attending the Preliminary Hearing because of the Claimant’s solicitors’ admitted failure to respond to correspondence. The Judge was satisfied that the failure was unreasonable in the circumstances and that it would be unreasonable for the Respondent to bear those costs.
A wasted costs order was therefore made in favour of the Respondent under Rule 80 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The order required the Claimant’s solicitors, Hunt & Coombs LLP, to pay £2,597.64 plus VAT of £444.54 within 14 days of the date of the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Wasted costs order made under Rule 80 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. | Upheld | — | £3,042 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,042
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 80 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.