Mr S Rampuri v BFS Group Limited — 2025

This was a costs judgment, not a merits decision on the underlying employment claims. The respondent applied on 2 June 2025 for a costs order against the claimant, relying on rule 74(2)(c) on the basis that a hearing had been postponed on an application made less than 7 days before the hearing, and on rule 74(2)(a) alleging unreasonable conduct. The application was decided on written representations only, with no hearing requested by either party.

Employment Judge Hawksworth refused the application. On rule 74(2)(c), the tribunal accepted the claimant's case that the 27 May 2025 email was a renewal or clarification of the earlier postponement application made on 22 May 2025, rather than a new application made within 7 days of the hearing. On rule 74(2)(a), the tribunal held that the claimant and his representatives had not acted unreasonably: they had warned the respondent on 6 May 2025 that a postponement might be sought, the timetable between the 14 April 2025 dismissal and the 29 May 2025 preliminary hearing was tight, and it was reasonable to seek a joint preliminary hearing once a second claim had been presented.

The tribunal also held that, even if grounds had been made out, it would not have exercised its discretion to award costs. It found that the respondent's costs arose from the existence of the second claim rather than from any late postponement application, and noted that some preparatory work for the 29 May 2025 hearing would still remain useful because the agenda and draft list of issues could be updated rather than recreated. The judgment therefore records no costs award and no other monetary remedy.