Mr E Dikyol v The Keyholding Company Limited — 2025

This was a reserved costs judgment, not a merits judgment on the underlying employment claims. The tribunal found that the respondent’s application under Rule 74(3) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 succeeded because the claimant had breached two tribunal orders, had not actively pursued the claim, and had failed over a five-month period to provide straightforward information requested about the case. The reasons recorded that the preliminary hearing had been ineffective and that the respondent was still unaware of the basis of parts of the claim.

The tribunal noted that the claimant had applied to postpone the hearing and gave reasons including being in Türkiye, his mother’s operation, his own ill health, and unstable internet access, but it found that there was no satisfactory explanation for the earlier failure to answer the tribunal’s questions. It accepted that the claimant was a litigant in person and that he referred to personal difficulties, but it did not accept that these prevented compliance with the orders. The tribunal also noted that the respondent had prepared for the hearing and had been put to unnecessary cost and delay.

Applying the stated three-stage approach to costs, the tribunal held that the Rule 74 threshold was met, decided to exercise its discretion in favour of a costs order, and then considered amount and means. It recorded that costs are compensatory and not punitive, accepted that the respondent’s costs of £4,690 were reasonable for the work done, and took into account the claimant’s limited evidence about ability to pay, including his statement that he had taken out a loan and was living off savings. The tribunal then ordered the claimant to pay £3,690 to the respondent.