Case 3202881/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr David McAndrew v Straight Edge Manufacturing Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 3202881/2022
- Decision date
- 21 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Burgher Appearances
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr David McAndrew
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis is a judgment on costs only. The substantive Employment Tribunal claims, brought on 29 April 2022 by Mr David McAndrew against Straight Edge Manufacturing Limited, were withdrawn by the Claimant on 15 December 2023, shortly before the final hearing listed for 2-5 January 2024. The Respondent applied on 18 December 2023 for a costs order under rule 76 of the 2013 Employment Tribunal rules, contending that the Claimant had acted unreasonably by pursuing concurrent proceedings in the Employment Tribunal and the High Court arising from the same factual matters concerning Hand-Arm Vibration Syndrome and the alleged conduct of a work colleague, and by continuing those proceedings after the High Court claim had progressed.
Regional Employment Judge Burgher applied the three-stage approach in Millan v Capsticks Solicitors LLP and considered McPherson v BNP Paribas and Mindimaxnox LLP v Gover. The Judge found that the Claimant had not acted unreasonably in any of the three respects advanced by the Respondent: bringing parallel claims in the Employment Tribunal and the High Court, continuing those claims after completion of the pre-action protocols in May 2023, or withdrawing the Tribunal claim on 15 December 2023. The Judge noted that certain claims (including disability discrimination, disability harassment and constructive unfair dismissal) could only be brought in the Employment Tribunal, that strict time limits applied, and that the withdrawal was a sensible litigation decision that ultimately saved costs.
The Judge added that, had the threshold of unreasonable conduct been met, he would in any event have declined to exercise his discretion to award costs, having regard to the Respondent's approach to the stay application and the without prejudice correspondence (including a drophands offer made on 23 November 2023). The Respondent's application for costs accordingly failed and was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | This judgment is a costs judgment only (Judgment on Costs dated 10 December 2024). The substantive Employment Tribunal claims (which the Layer 1 gov.uk listing recorded as breach of contract, disability discrimination and unfair dismissal) were withdrawn by the Claimant on 15 December 2023, two weeks before the listed final hearing, and the substantive proceedings were not adjudicated on their merits. The Respondent then applied on 18 December 2023 for costs under rule 76 of the 2013 Employment Tribunal rules. This judgment records that the Respondent's application for costs failed and was dismissed. The judgment also notes that, although the underlying claim had been withdrawn, there was no extant application to reconsider the revocation of the earlier dismissal judgment sent to the parties on 30 May 2024, and that no dismissal of the substantive claim under rule 52(b) had been made. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- Rule 76 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- Rule 78 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- Millan v Capsticks Solicitors LLP & Others UKEAT/0093/14/RN
- McPherson v BNP Paribas (London Branch) [2004] ICR 1398
- Mindimaxnox LLP v Gover UKEAT/0225/10/DA
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.