QR v The G.I. Group Limited — 2024

This is a reserved judgment on a costs application made by the Respondent at the conclusion of a public preliminary hearing held on 8-10 May 2024. At that preliminary hearing the Tribunal had dismissed the Claimant's applications for strike out, for postponement and for an anonymity order under r.50, and had considered a preliminary issue concerning a breach of contract claim. The Respondent applied for costs under r.76(1)(a) and (b), relying on Yerrakalva v Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council [2012] ICR 420, CA, and submitted that the Claimant's conduct was unreasonable and that the applications and the breach of contract claim had no reasonable prospect of success.

Employment Judge Cowen concluded that the strike out and postponement applications were unlikely to succeed because the Claimant had been provided with the content of the Respondent's statements sufficiently in advance, that the anonymity application was inappropriate and showed a lack of understanding of the applicable legal principles, and that the breach of contract claim had little prospect of success on the Claimant's own evidence. Dealing with the applications had taken a whole day of Tribunal time. The Judge held it appropriate to make a costs award, taking into account the misuse of Tribunal time and the inevitable dismissal of the applications.

Evidence on means was taken from the Claimant and her husband: the Claimant was unemployed and financially dependent on her husband, who gave evidence of a disposable income of approximately £250-300 per month. Taking the joint household income and the Respondent's Schedule of Costs into account, the Judge ordered the Claimant to pay the Respondent £10,100 towards the costs of the Preliminary Hearing.