Mr C Grant v Absent Matthew Barsaukas — 2019

Mr C Grant brought claims for unpaid wages and for failure to provide a written statement of his terms and conditions of employment. The judgment records that, after a merits hearing on 29, 30 and 31 July 2019, the tribunal dismissed the substantive claims on the ground that employee status had not been established. It also records that, at an earlier preliminary hearing, the original corporate respondents had been dismissed from the action after it emerged that they had been dissolved.

This written judgment concerns the respondent's later application for expenses. Applying rule 76(1) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, the tribunal considered whether the claimant had acted vexatiously, abusively, disruptively or otherwise unreasonably, or whether the claims had no reasonable prospect of success. It noted that there had been some delay in complying with orders, but found that the claimant's uncertainty about who employed him was genuine, that the employment relationship was not straightforward, and that his response to the unless order accurately reflected that uncertainty. Taking account that he was a litigant in person, and citing AQ v Holden and Yerrakalva, the tribunal held that the rule 76 threshold was not met and dismissed the respondent's expenses application.