Mr C Thornton v Nslx Ltd — 2025

This judgment concerns only the respondent's application for a preparation time order under rule 75 of the Employment Tribunals Procedure Rules 2024, made after the claimant withdrew his complaint for unpaid expenses at a case management preliminary hearing on 6 January 2025. The respondent argued the expenses complaint had been vexatious because the claimant withdrew it once he realised he would need to produce evidence such as credit card statements. The claimant responded that the withdrawal was a strategic and proportionate decision made in good faith to narrow the issues.

Employment Judge Ainscough determined that the claimant's expenses complaint was not vexatious or an abuse of process. The claim was advanced on the basis that the claimant was an employee, and the contract provided for reimbursement of expenses subject to line-manager approval; if the claimant succeeds in establishing employee status at the final hearing, the expenses claim would have had a sound legal basis under the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994. The judge noted the claimant is a litigant in person who, during discussion at the preliminary hearing, appreciated the evidential burden and chose to withdraw the complaint rather than disclose personal credit card records.

The judge concluded that the ground for making a preparation time order under rule 74(2)(a) was not made out and dismissed the respondent's application. The substantive complaints of unlawful deduction from wages, holiday pay and notice pay, and the disputed question of the claimant's employment status, remain for determination at the final hearing.