Ms Kelly Connor v No appearance and No representation Lillie Beau Ltd — 2026

This was a hearing on the respondent’s application for expenses, held on 14 January 2026. The tribunal considered written material only, including the final hearing bundle, the earlier tribunal judgment, correspondence, and the respondent’s detailed costs schedule. The respondent sought expenses on the grounds that the unfair dismissal claim had no reasonable prospects of success and that the claimant had acted unreasonably in the conduct of the proceedings.

The tribunal recorded the background from the earlier merits hearing: the claimant had been dismissed after the relationship with the owner broke down irretrievably, following a written warning, customer complaints, sickness absence, a declined disciplinary hearing, and evidence that she had told customers she would reopen a salon at home and had carried out nail work from home for respondent customers. It also found that the claimant had on occasions failed to comply with tribunal rules and orders, and that her responses to orders were “misleading if not uncandid”; the judgment also refers to evidence described as “disingenuous”.

Applying Rules 74, 80 and 82, and the authorities it cited on unreasonable conduct and the exercise of discretion, including McPherson and Yerrakalva, the tribunal held that the unfair dismissal claim had no reasonable prospects of success. It then decided that, taking the whole picture into account, it was appropriate to make an expenses order notwithstanding the claimant’s limited means.

In fixing the amount, the tribunal accepted that the claimant was a mature student with limited income, savings and significant debts, but also noted that the respondent was a micro business and that paying the full claimed costs could put it at risk of insolvency. It considered 70 hours of work at £280 per hour not unreasonable for the respondent’s representative, but did not assess the full claimed costs of £19,075. Instead, it ordered the claimant to pay £4,000 and made no award for VAT, on the basis that it was understood to be reclaimable by the respondent.