Tribunal Member: Mr R Taggart Tribunal Member: Mr R McPherson Mr A Seymour v L Mackie — 2024

This judgment concerned the respondents' application for expenses after the claimant emailed on 25 October 2024 saying that he was withdrawing his case because he had been ill at the thought of facing Lara and Dannette again and that this had affected his mental health. The respondents initially sought £8,000, later restricting the request to £6,000 plus VAT, and relied on Rule 76(1)(a) and (b) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013.

The tribunal refused the application at the threshold stage. On alleged unreasonable conduct, it held that the claimant had not failed to comply with Order 3 from the case management hearing, because the schedule of loss only had to be updated if necessary and the claimant's evidence was that he was not claiming loss of earnings after termination of his employment with the third respondent. It also accepted his explanation that he had a paper copy of the bundle at the hearing and did not need to download the virtual version.

On the claimant's reason for withdrawing, the tribunal accepted that there was no medical vouching, but accepted his evidence that his mental health had suffered and found that the reason for withdrawal was genuine. On reasonable prospects, it was not willing to find that the discrimination claim against the second and third respondents or the constructive dismissal claim had no reasonable prospect of success without further factual enquiry. It noted the dispute about the 8 March 2024 meeting, the claimant's account of resigning later through an online portal, and the absence of an earlier strike-out application.

The tribunal cited Radia v Jefferies International, McPherson v BNP Paribas (London Branch), Vaughan v London Borough of Lewisham, Brooks v Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust and Opalkova v Acquire Care Ltd, but concluded that neither limb of Rule 76 was made out. The respondents' application for expenses was therefore refused.