Case 4103197/2022 · Employment Tribunal

Mrs A Lee v Represented by Heather Hiram, lay representative Scottish Ambulance Service Board — 2023

Case reference: 4103197/2022
Decision date: 27 January 2023
Jurisdiction: Scotland
Judge: Employment Judge E Mannion

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mrs A Lee

Respondent

Represented by Heather Hiram, lay representative Scottish Ambulance Service Board

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The hearing concerned the respondent's written application for a wasted costs order arising from the preliminary hearing on 24 October 2022. The tribunal identified the issues as whether the claimant's representative had acted improperly, unreasonably or negligently, whether the respondent had incurred costs as a result, and whether the representative fell within Rule 80(2) of the Employment Tribunal (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013. The tribunal recorded that the claimant was represented by her husband, Mr Lee, who was a lay representative, and that this was the third preliminary hearing in the case.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Other	Respondent's application for a wasted costs order under Rule 80 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013. The tribunal held that Mr Lee was not a 'representative' under Rule 80(2) because he was not acting in pursuit of profit, so no wasted costs order could be made.	Dismissed	—	—

Legal tests applied

3 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.