Case 4104196/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Loading page content.
TopCase 4104196/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Nadine-Anne Harkness
This decision concerns interlocutory applications arising out of the respondent's challenge to how the first day of the substantive hearing on 11 January 2024 proceeded. The underlying case involved a like-work comparison between the claimant and male Tier 1 aviation firefighters, and the tribunal recorded that the parties had proceeded on different assumptions about whether the claim was limited to three named comparators or extended to the wider group of Tier 1 firefighters.
On the costs application, the tribunal accepted that the hearing was materially affected by a genuine misunderstanding about the extent of the case. It found the respondent's belief that the claim was limited to the three named comparators was not unreasonably held, but it also found that the claimant and Mr Bathgate were entitled to proceed on the basis of the PH note, which stated that the comparator/s were Tier 1 Aviation Firefighters and that three names would be confirmed. The tribunal concluded that neither the claimant nor her representative had acted vexatiously, abusively, disruptively or otherwise unreasonably, and the costs application was rejected.
The wasted costs application was also rejected. Applying the same findings, the tribunal concluded that there had been no improper, unreasonable or negligent act or omission by Mr Bathgate within Rule 80. The strikeout application was refused as well. Although the tribunal accepted that the claimant and Mr Bathgate discussed the case over lunch while the claimant was still on oath, it found that the discussion was limited to taking instructions about the procedural consequences of the tribunal's developing decision on how the hearing should proceed. The tribunal was not satisfied that there had been a breakdown in trust such that a fair hearing could no longer be conducted.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Respondent's application for costs under Rule 76 was rejected after the tribunal found a genuine misunderstanding about the scope of the comparator case and no vexatious, abusive, disruptive or otherwise unreasonable conduct by the claimant or Mr Bathgate. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Respondent's application for wasted costs under Rule 80 was rejected because the tribunal found no improper, unreasonable or negligent act or omission by Mr Bathgate. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Respondent's strikeout application under Rule 37 was refused; although the claimant and Mr Bathgate discussed the case during lunch while she remained on oath, the tribunal found the discussion was limited to the procedural consequences of the morning's developments and that a fair hearing was still possible. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.
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.