Loading…

Sex discrimination 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 — employment tribunal data | Tribunal Watch

Employer × claim type

Sex discrimination 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

Tribunal Watch has indexed 1 case involving sex discrimination claims 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, out of 1 total case on record for this employer. See also all sex discrimination cases across every employer.

Sex discrimination cases: 1
Total awarded: —
Share of employer caseload: 100%

All sex discrimination 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

1 case · chronological

Case ref.	Decided	Jurisdiction	Claimant	Claim types	Award
4104196/2023	17 March 2024	Scotland	Ms Nadine-Anne Harkness	Sex discrimination	—

Methodology

This page lists the subset of ’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's tribunal cases tagged with sex discrimination in the §4.4 claim-type taxonomy. A single judgment frequently combines multiple claim types, so the same case may appear on more than one claim-type page. Award figures are taken from the remedy section of each judgment where present; cases without a quantified award — because the tribunal only determined liability, or because the remedy hearing is pending — are listed with no award amount. See how the data is built.