Case 6013677/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Bennett, Counsel For the v Respondent — 2025
- Case reference
- 6013677/2025
- Decision date
- 21 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge P Klimov
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr S Bennett, Counsel For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a video hearing on 6 November 2025, Employment Judge P Klimov sat alone to determine the respondents' costs application arising from the claimant's interim relief application. The judgment records that the claimant's interim relief application had no reasonable prospect of success.
The tribunal also found that the claimant had acted unreasonably and vexatiously in bringing the interim relief application and in the way the proceedings relating to that application were conducted. On that basis, the respondents' costs order application succeeded.
The tribunal ordered the claimant to pay the first respondent, Track 24 Limited, £20,000 in respect of its costs. No other remedy was recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The claimant's interim relief application had no reasonable prospect of success. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The respondents' costs order application succeeded, and the claimant was ordered to pay the first respondent £20,000 in costs. | Upheld | — | £20,000 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £20,000
- across all upheld claims
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.