Case 6038984/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Curtis Fisher v WH Smith Travel Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 6038984/2025
- Decision date
- 9 June 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Abbott JUDGMENT
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Curtis Fisher
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy a judgment dated 19 March 2026, the Tribunal dismissed Curtis Fisher's claim under Rule 47 after he failed to attend the final hearing. The costs judgment did not determine the underlying merits.
Employment Judge Abbott found that Rule 74(2) was engaged because Mr Fisher had acted unreasonably in conducting the proceedings. He had not complied with the Tribunal's directions, responded to the Respondent's correspondence or the Tribunal's strike-out warning, attended the final hearing, explained his absence, or responded to the costs application. The Tribunal considered the threshold of unreasonable behaviour clearly met and found it unnecessary to consider whether the underlying claims had reasonable prospects of success.
The Tribunal decided that a costs order was appropriate because Mr Fisher had initiated the claim but made no effort to pursue it, while WH Smith Travel Limited incurred costs defending it. No evidence about his ability to pay was provided. The fees and disbursements were found reasonable and proportionate, and Mr Fisher was ordered to pay the Respondent £2,225 in costs.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The costs judgment does not separately identify the underlying complaints. It records that the claim was dismissed under Rule 47 on 19 March 2026 after the Claimant failed to attend the final hearing, without determination of the underlying merits. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The costs judgment does not separately identify the underlying complaints. It records that the claim was dismissed under Rule 47 on 19 March 2026 after the Claimant failed to attend the final hearing, without determination of the underlying merits. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,225
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
6 references- Rule 74(2) Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- three-stage costs process under Rules 74 and 76
- Rule 82 ability to pay
- Yerrakalva v Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council and another [2012] ICR 420
- AQ Ltd v Holden [2012] IRLR 648
- Vaughan v London Borough of Lewisham [2013] IRLR 713
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.