Ms Nadine-Anne Harkness v ’S APPLICATIONS FOR COSTS, WASTED COSTS AND STRIKEOUT FOLLOWING MEMBERS’ DAY ON FEBRUARY 2024 Summary 1. These applications are made by the and 18 others — 2024

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.