’s application for costs is rejected.10 Wasted costs 15. Rule provides that: “(1) A Tribunal may make a wasted costs order against a representative in favour of any party (“the receiving party”) where that party has incurred costs —15 (a) as a result of any improper, unreasonable or negligent act or omission on the part of the representative; or (b) which, in the light of any such act or omission occurring after they were incurred, the Tribunal considers it unreasonable to expect the receiving party to pay.”20 16. Having made the findings set out above in relation to the application for costs, the Tribunal also concludes for some those same reasons that there was no improper and unreasonable or negligent act or omission on the part of Mr Bathgate and therefore the application for wasted costs is also rejected. Application for strikeout 17. The — employment tribunal cases | Tribunal Watch
Employer file
Employment tribunal cases against ’s application for costs is rejected.10 Wasted costs 15. Rule provides that: “(1) A Tribunal may make a wasted costs order against a representative in favour of any party (“the receiving party”) where that party has incurred costs —15 (a) as a result of any improper, unreasonable or negligent act or omission on the part of the representative; or (b) which, in the light of any such act or omission occurring after they were incurred, the Tribunal considers it unreasonable to expect the receiving party to pay.”20 16. Having made the findings set out above in relation to the application for costs, the Tribunal also concludes for some those same reasons that there was no improper and unreasonable or negligent act or omission on the part of Mr Bathgate and therefore the application for wasted costs is also rejected. Application for strikeout 17. The
Since 2017, ’s application for costs is rejected.10 Wasted costs 15. Rule provides that: “(1) A Tribunal may make a wasted costs order against a representative in favour of any party (“the receiving party”) where that party has incurred costs —15 (a) as a result of any improper, unreasonable or negligent act or omission on the part of the representative; or (b) which, in the light of any such act or omission occurring after they were incurred, the Tribunal considers it unreasonable to expect the receiving party to pay.”20 16. Having made the findings set out above in relation to the application for costs, the Tribunal also concludes for some those same reasons that there was no improper and unreasonable or negligent act or omission on the part of Mr Bathgate and therefore the application for wasted costs is also rejected. Application for strikeout 17. The has appeared as a respondent in 1 employment tribunal case, with £0 in total awards recorded against the employer.
Data extracted from published employment tribunal judgments on gov.uk. Case reference, decision date, judge, venue and claim categories come from structured metadata. Claimant and respondent names are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Outcomes and compensation are not yet populated for every case — see how the data is built.