Ms M Pruzhanskaya v Flex Legal and others: 2303341/2024

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS

Case No 2303341/2024

Between

Ms M PruzhanskayaClaimant

Flex Legal R1 Maitland Walker LLP R2 Mischon de Reya LLP R3Respondent

Before

Employment Judge Wright

In person for claimant

Date 18 July 2025

JUDGMENT

R1 and R2’s application to strike out the claim under Rule 38(1)(b) and R3’s application to strike out the claim under Rule 38(1)(a) are both successful. The claim is struck out. Approved by

REASONS

[1]At the preliminary hearing, the claimant’s claim was struck out against R1 and R2 and separately against R3, for the reasons given.

[2]Following oral judgment, both respondents made an application for costs.

[3]R3 made a costs application against the claimant under Rule 74(2)(b). The essence of the application was that the claimant had no reasonable prospects of success against it. R3 made the point that although the claimant was a litigant in person, she had been working as a paralegal, had completed the legal practice course and had aspirations to become a solicitor. She had also been involved in litigation in the High Court of her own.

[4]R3 referred to the successful strike out application and to the finding that there was no identifiable claim against R3 in the pleadings and therefore, it had no reasonable prospects of success. It was submitted the claim against R3 was doomed to fail from the outset. R3 has explained the hopelessness of the claim against it from the start in its ET3. Rather than consider that reasonably and carefully, the claimant bombarded R3 with baseless applications.

[5]R3 limited the costs sought to the sum of £4,500, being its costs of representation at the hearing.

[6]R1 and R2 applied for costs due to the manner in which the claimant had conducted the proceedings. They referred to her failure to progress her case and her conduct of the proceedings. They referred to her causing a significant amount of time and therefore costs, dealing with her numerous emails.

[7]As the Tribunal was unable to ask the claimant about her ability to pay any costs awarded against her under Rule 82, the claimant was given the opportunity to set out her objection to the costs application and the ability to pay in writing. The costs application was reserved pending that.

[8]The Tribunal wrote to the parties on the 21/7/2025 and informed the claimant she had 14 days to set out her position in respect of both cost applications. She was also invited to set out her position on her ability to pay any costs which she may be Ordered to pay and was referred to count court form EX140. The respondents were informed they may then comment or respond to any submission which the claimant made. Case Number: 2303341/2024 3

[9]The claimant responded on the 25/7/2025 stating that she had not received a schedule of costs prior to the hearing. She did not comply with Rule 90 and the Tribunal informed her of that.

[10]The claimant continued to send correspondence to the Tribunal, some of which was copied to the respondents.

[11]The claimant applied for more time to respond to the costs application on the 1/8/2025. On the 30/9/2025 she was granted a further seven days. On the 15/10/2025 the administration confirmed no response had been received from the claimant. In total, the claimant had had over 11 weeks to respond by the time of this Judgment.

[12]R3’s application was made under Rule 74(2)(b): (2) The Tribunal must consider making a costs order or a preparation time order where it considers that—(a) …

(b) any claim, response or reply had no reasonable prospect of success, or …

[13]When determining an application for costs, the ET should apply a three-stage approach: 13.1. Is the relevant jurisdictional threshold in rule 74 met? 13.2. If so, should the ET exercise its discretion in favour of making a costs order? 13.3. If so, what sum of costs should the ET order?

[14]In circumstances where the Tribunal finds that the jurisdictional threshold in rule 74 is met, the Tribunal retains a broad discretion as to whether to make a costs order and the amount of any costs awarded. Whilst there is no closed list of factors relevant to the exercise of the Tribunal’s discretion, the following factors are often relevant: 14.1. Costs orders are intended to be compensatory, not punitive (Lodwick v Southwark LBC

[2004] ICR 884

, CA). 14.2. The paying party’s ability to pay is a factor which the Tribunal is entitled, but not obligated, to consider (rule 82). Where regard is had to the paying party’s ability to pay, that factor should be balanced against Case Number: 2303341/2024 4 the need to compensate the receiving party who has unreasonably been put to expense (Howman v Queen Elizabeth Hospital Kings Lynn

UKEAT/0509/12

). 14.3. Any assessment or consideration of means need not be limited to the paying party’s means as at the date the order is made. It is sufficient that there is a “realistic prospect that [they] might at some point in the future be able to afford to pay” (Vaughan v London Borough of Lewisham

[2013] IRLR 713

, EAT). 14.4. Where the Tribunal does decide to take the paying party’s means into account, it must do so on the basis of sufficient evidence (for example by the paying party completing a county court form EX140) (Oni v NHS Leicester City

UKEAT/0144/12

). 14.5. There is no requirement to limit costs to the amount the paying party can afford (Arrowsmith v Nottingham Trent University

[2012] ICR 159

, EAT). 14.6. The Tribunal may have regard to the means of a party’s spouse or other immediate family members (Abaya v Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust

UKEAT/0258/16

). 14.7. Whether a party is legally represented may be a relevant factor. An unrepresented litigant may be afforded more latitude than a party who has the benefit of professional legal advice and representation (AQ Ltd v Holden

[2012] IRLR 648

, EAT).

[15]The claimant has not addressed the respondent’s cost applications which were made during the hearing. She has not provided any information regarding her ability to pay any costs awarded.

[16]The Tribunal notes the claimant has a costs Order against her in the King’s Bench Division of the High Court. It is also aware she earned £17.50 per hour when she worked for R2.

[17]The Tribunal is a costs neutral jurisdiction. It is not however a cost-free jurisdiction or a risk-free jurisdiction.

[18]Should the Tribunal exercise its discretion in favour of making a costs award?

[19]The Tribunal finds R1 and R2’s application lack specificity. It declines to exercise its discretion and to make a costs award in favour of the R1 and R2. Case Number: 2303341/2024 5

[20]In respect of R3, the strike out application was more straight-forward. There was no identifiable claim against it. There was no direct allegation against R3 in the claimant’s narrative/particulars of complaint. The claimant could have withdrawn her claim against R3, particularly once she received the explanation as to the very limited role R3 had as ultimate owner of the share capital of R1. Had she done that, she could have still pursued her claim against R1 and R2. Indeed R1 and R2 accepted potential liability, although they denied any wrongdoing or breach (grounds of resistance paragraphs 50, 54 and 55). Had the claimant not behaved unreasonably in her conduct of the proceedings, she may well have been able to pursue her claim.

[21]In those circumstances, the Tribunal is persuaded to exercise its discretion to make a costs order against the claimant. At the time of the hearing, there were 575-pages of documents on the Tribunal’s file. The bundle for the hearing ran to 262-pages. It contained many documents to evidence the extent of R3’s involvement in the matter – R1 is a subsidiary of a subsidiary of and that subsidiary purchased the share capital of R1 on 21/12/203. There would have been no need for all of that documentation and for R3 to prepare for and attend the hearing; had the claimant reflected upon her position vis-à-vis R3.

[22]The Tribunal reminds itself that costs are compensatory and are not punitive. The costs incurred of £4,500 are reasonable. taking into account the work which has been done. The claim did not have any reasonable prospects of success from the outset.

[23]For those reasons, the Tribunal finds the costs threshold is met, it was persuaded to exercise its discretion in favour of the respondent. The claimant has not taken the opportunity to provide any further information about her ability to pay. Clearly, a costs Order in the High Court of £65,000 did not deter the claimant from pursuing an unmeritorious claim. R3’s costs are well in excess of £4,500, it has however limited its costs to that sum.

[24]The Tribunal Orders the claimant to pay to R3 the sum of £4,500. 16/10/2025 Case Number: 2303341/2024 6 Approved by