Case 6000174/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Representations in writing from the claimant For the v Representations in writing from Ms. K Hayes, Burges Salmon LLP — 2024
- Case reference
- 6000174/2022
- Decision date
- 1 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge A James Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Representations in writing from the claimant For the
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis judgment, issued on the papers by Employment Judge A James on 1 October 2024, determined the respondent's application for costs following earlier proceedings in which the claimant's claims had been settled at a judicial mediation on 9 June 2023 by a COT3 agreement for a total of £25,000 (comprising £20,396.96 compensation for loss of employment, £2,275.76 contractual notice, and £2,227.28 holiday pay). After settlement, the claimant sent numerous emails to the respondent's solicitors disputing the breakdown and raising arguments that a misrepresentation had been made in connection with the COT3. His application to set aside the COT3 was refused on 24 November 2023.
The tribunal concluded that the claimant's conduct of the proceedings, following the COT3 settlement, had been unreasonable within the meaning of Rule 76(1)(a), and that his arguments alleging misrepresentation had no reasonable prospect of success within Rule 76(1)(b). The judge took into account the email correspondence, the claimant's failure to engage with the respondent's arguments on the validity and meaning of the agreement, the pursuit of the misrepresentation allegation, and a late postponement application based on matters not relevant to the listed hearing.
Having found the threshold met and the discretion appropriate to exercise, the judge assessed the amount. Counsel's brief fee of £1,250 (excluding VAT) for the 24 November 2023 hearing was awarded in full. For the solicitors' costs, the judge applied County Court guideline rates (rather than the £305 and £410 per hour actually charged), taking a broad-brush approach that notionally reduced costs of around £15,000 to around £10,000, and, having regard to the claimant's relatively modest income supplemented by accessible savings, awarded £4,750 (excluding VAT). The total costs award was £6,000, excluding VAT, with VAT not added because the respondent could recover it.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Costs application by the respondent under Rules 76 to 84 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013. The tribunal found the claimant's conduct of the proceedings following settlement by COT3 had been unreasonable, and that his misrepresentation arguments had no reasonable prospects of success. Costs of £6,000 (excluding VAT) awarded to the respondent. The underlying substantive claims (originally including breach of contract and disability discrimination per the gov.uk listing) had previously been settled at judicial mediation on 9 June 2023 by COT3 agreement for £25,000, and the claimant's separate application to set aside the COT3 was refused on 24 November 2023; this judgment addresses only the consequent costs application. | Upheld | — | £6,000 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,000
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 76(1)(a) Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- Rule 76(1)(b) Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- Rules 76 to 84 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe 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.