Mr C Reeves v The OM Group Corporation Ltd: 1307974/2023
REASONS
Issues
[1]Was the Respondent’s representatives firm Croner, unreasonable, improper or negligent in any of its acts or omissions in the conduct of the proceedings in accordance with Rule 80 of the Employment Tribunal rules?[2]If so, should the Tribunal exercise its discretion to make a costs order when considering the nature of the default, its gravity and effect, the means to pay and the considerations in Ridehalgh and Mardell?[3]If the Tribunal exercises its discretion, how much should the costs order be for?Evidence
[4]I heard no evidence at the costs hearing. The parties proceeded on the basis of documents and submissions alone. Any facts are therefore found from the documents in the bundle unless otherwise stated.[5]There was an indexed agreed bundle of documents of 129 pages, a costs exhibit SG1 of 27 pages and a schedule of costs.The facts
[6]The Tribunal ordered the parties to exchange documents and statements in this short track case on or before 16 January 2024.[7]On 4 January 2024, the Claimant’s representatives (“Croner”) suggested that document alone be exchanged on 16 January 2024 and then witness statement be exchanged 21 days later. This was agreed to by the Respondent.[8]On 16 January 2024, exchange of documents did not take place and the parties agreed to extend the document deadline to 24 January 2024.[9]The Claimant sent his documents to the Respondent on 24 January 2024, and reminded the Respondent that the next deadline was 6 February 2024 for exchanging witness evidence.[10]On 24 January 2024, the Respondent CEO writes to Croner about disclosure. Croner update the Claimant as follows: Case Number:1307974/2023