Case 3305337/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Lovis v Future Academies Trust — 2024
- Case reference
- 3305337/2023
- Decision date
- 25 April 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Lovis
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing at Watford by CVP on 25 April 2024 before Employment Judge G D Davison. The claimant did not attend and had no legal representative present. The respondent was represented by Mrs S Dhillon, solicitor.
The judgment concerned costs only. The tribunal cited the costs provisions in rules 74 to 84 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 and rule 76(1), which permits a costs order where a party has acted vexatiously, abusively, disruptively or otherwise unreasonably, or where a claim or response had no reasonable prospect of success.
The tribunal found that the claimant had not attended the previous preliminary hearing, had not complied with orders made, and had not attended the hearing listed for 25 April 2024. It found that this conduct was unreasonable and ordered the claimant to pay the respondent's costs of £500 for preparation time for the day's hearing.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | This judgment is a preliminary hearing on costs only. The tribunal did not determine any substantive unfair dismissal or discrimination claim in the text provided. | Other | — | £500 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £500
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- rules 74 to 84, schedule 1, Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- rule 76(1) Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 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.