Case 3314038/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Angela Stott v The Cambridge Access Validating Agency (CAVA) — 2020
- Case reference
- 3314038/2019
- Decision date
- 14 August 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ord Members
- Panel members
- Mr D Sutton, Mr S Holford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Angela Stott
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a costs judgment at a preliminary hearing heard in Cambridge on 11 August 2020 before Employment Judge Ord, with lay members Mr D Sutton and Mr S Holford. The Tribunal considered why the matter had to be postponed and found that the principal cause was the Respondent's failure to comply with orders for disclosure of documents and for preparation and delivery of a complete final bundle to the Claimant.
The Tribunal noted that the Claimant was a litigant in person and could not reasonably be expected to deal with documents sent electronically on the working day before the case was due to start. It also observed that, if the Respondent said Covid-19 had caused delay, that should have been dealt with in correspondence seeking agreed compliance dates, and if necessary by application to the Tribunal.
The Tribunal was satisfied that the case could have proceeded that day had the Respondent acted appropriately, and that the Respondent's action or inaction amounted to unreasonable conduct causing the postponement. The Claimant was found to have suffered no loss of earnings or other financial loss apart from travel costs of £12.00.
The Respondent was ordered to pay the Claimant's costs of the postponed hearing in the sum of £12.00 within 14 days of 14 August 2020.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Costs judgment at a preliminary hearing. The Tribunal found the Respondent's failure to comply with disclosure and final bundle orders caused the postponement and ordered it to pay the Claimant's travel costs of £12. | Upheld | — | £12 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £12
- across all upheld claims
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.