Mr A Paraskeva v AND Wessex Water Services Limited — 2023

The claimant started work for the respondent in 2023 and was on a six-month probationary period. After an investigation meeting on 29 September 2023 concerning allegations of bullying and inappropriate conduct, he raised a grievance that was not upheld and whose appeal was dismissed. In December 2023 he brought proceedings alleging age discrimination and detriment arising from protected public interest disclosures. The case management preliminary hearing was listed for 6 June 2024, adjourned after the claimant sought a postponement on medical grounds, and relisted for 27 November 2024. The claimant then withdrew the claim on 18 October 2024, and judgment was issued on 29 October 2024 recording dismissal on withdrawal.

The respondent applied for costs of £337.50 plus VAT, said to total £405, under Rule 74 of the Employment Tribunals Procedure Rules 2024. It said the claimant had acted vexatiously, abusively or otherwise unreasonably by asking for a postponement on medical grounds when the real reason was a clash with another tribunal hearing against a former employer, and by later withdrawing the claim. The tribunal set out the two-stage approach from Monaghan v Close Thornton and the broader "whole picture" approach in Barnsley BC v Yerrakalva, and also referred to the principles in Gee v Shell Ltd, McPherson v BNP Paribas, Dyer v SS Employment, AQ Ltd v Holden, Arrowsmith v Nottingham Trent University, Radia v Jefferies International Ltd, Brooks v Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust and the relevant ET Rules.

The tribunal found that the postponement application was unreasonable because the claimant did not tell the tribunal that he could attend the longer seven-day hearing in the other case and that the real difficulty was the clash of dates. However, it held that this did not justify a costs award because the application had been made nearly four weeks before the hearing, the hearing would probably have been postponed in any event if the true reason had been given, and the respondent had not really been prejudiced. The tribunal also rejected the costs application based on withdrawal: it accepted the claimant's explanation that he wanted to return to work, had a new line manager, and was reassured that the managers he had complained about had been redeployed elsewhere. It noted that the withdrawal on 18 October 2024 was about six weeks before the relisted hearing and saved further preparation time. The respondent's costs application was therefore dismissed.