Claimant v Barclays Execution Services Ltd and others — 2022

This is a reserved costs judgment by Employment Judge John Crosfill, sitting alone, concerning the Claimant's non-attendance at the preliminary hearing listed for 29 April 2022. The judgment notes that the underlying case was the second of two claims arising from his employment with Barclays Execution Services Limited and that it included unfair dismissal, protected disclosure and Equality Act claims, but those merits issues were not determined in this document. The immediate issue was the Respondents' application for their legal costs of the postponed hearing.

The tribunal recorded that the Claimant had asked for the hearing to be postponed on health grounds, had been given clear directions to file medical evidence specifically addressing whether he could comply with the timetable and attend, and did not provide a witness statement on time. The judge accepted that Mr Samnick had a disability and that he had produced some medical evidence, but found that the material was old, did not address the relevant questions directly, and that the psychotherapist's letter sent at 20:04 on 28 April 2022 was unreasoned and came too late. The judge found that the Claimant had decided in advance not to attend the 29 April hearing and that his failure to provide timely evidence or notice was unreasonable.

Applying rule 76(1)(a), and taking into account the whole picture including the Claimant's senior banking role, his ability to produce lengthy documents in the litigation, and the Respondents' wasted attendance costs, the tribunal held that the threshold for a costs order was met and that it was appropriate to exercise the discretion. It also had regard to the Claimant's means, including his employment, family circumstances and earning potential, and ordered him to pay the Respondents £3,500 in respect of the costs of the postponed hearing.