Peter Harriman v Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd: 2200096/2019
JUDGMENT
The Claimant shall pay the Respondent £8000 by way of costs within 21 days.REASONS
[1]These reasons should be read with the judgment and reasons dismissing the Claims.[2]I found that the Claimant knew when bringing his claims for unfair dismissal and notice pay that he was guilty of serious gross misconduct which included deliberate breaches of policy and attempts to conceal the same over an extended period.[3]The Claimant’s claim (which was principally based on the argument that the decision not to suspend him pending the disciplinary hearing made the subsequent dismissal unfair) was not only hopeless but disingenuous seeing that it had been the Claimant himself who have asked not to be suspended, and to his knowledge he had been granted that concession as an act of humanity and leniency on the part of Mr Noonan.[4]The Claimant had access to professional legal advice in relation to his Tribunal proceedings and he must or should have been aware that his claim for unfair dismissal and notice pay had no reasonable prospect of success and that he was vulnerable to a costs award if he pursued it.[5]The Claimant was made a generous settlement offer of £5000 by the Respondent which he declined and on 26 July 2019 that offer was repeated, the Respondent at the same time making a costs warning which sets out the reasons why the 2200096 2019 2 claim were hopeless, which reasons are much the same as those later given for the judgment dismissing the claim.[6]I find that the Claimant has acted unreasonably and vexatiously and has brought and pursued claims which had no reasonable prospect of success and hence my discretion to make a costs order under rule 76 is engaged.[7]The Claimant earns £50000 per year in a permanent new job with Iceland, drives an Audi and lives in a house worth about £350000. He has no significant debts apart from a mortgage on his home. I find that he can afford to pay the sum of £8000 costs incurred by the Respondent in defending this claim, which sum is modest and reasonable having regard to the number of witnesses and the fact that the trial was heard over three days in London, with Counsel representing the Respondent.[8]I find that it is reasonable and appropriate to make a costs order against the Claimant in the sum claimed namely £8000. Employment Judge Burns 07/8/2019 London Central Date and place of Order Date sent to the Parties 20/08/2019 For Secretary of the Tribunals Oral reasons having been given to the parties at the end of the hearing, o written reasons will be provided unless either party, within 14 days of the date on which this judgment is handed/sent to the parties, makes a written request for the same. 2200096 2019 1 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (ENGLAND & WALES) PETER HARRIMAN Claimant V SAINSBURYS SUPERMARKETS LTD Respondent HELD AT: London Central ON: 30/8/2019 Employment Judge: Mr J S Burns[1]The application has not been copied to the Respondent as required by Rules 71 and 92.[2]The Claimant in his application re-argues matters which have already been considered by the Tribunal. He has added some additional detail but had an opportunity to do so before the costs order was made. The elaboration he has added now does not show that the costs order is inappropriate in principle or in amount.[3]In relation to paragraph 5 of the application: - the Respondent’s letter dated 26/7/2019 referred to the offer contained therein having been made previously, and the Claimant did not take issue with this at the time that the letter was produced and discussed on 7/8/2019. In any event, the decision on costs would be the same even if the offer made on 26/7 had not been made before.[4]In relation to paragraph 7 of the application: The lateness of the Respondent’s witnesses on the first day did not cause the case to overrun into the third day as the Claimant gave his evidence first (he being willing to do so). Even if the case had lasted for 2 days, the sum of £8000 claimed by the Respondent would still have been modest and reasonable, having regard to the usual costs of litigating in the Central London tribunal.[5]It is agreed that the Claimant was punctual and well behaved in his personal demeanour at the Tribunal. This is expected of all parties at the Tribunal. The costs-order has not been made because of such matters but because the claim 2200096 2019 2 was a hopeless one from the outset and because it was pursued based on a disingenuous argument. The costs would be justified on either basis.[6]The reasons given for the costs order signed on 7/8/2019 are repeated.