Mr K Doyley v FedEx Express UK Transportation Ltd: 2304855/2020
JUDGMENT
[1]UNDER RULE 37/38 As a result of non-compliance with the Tribunal’s Unless Order and no response to the Tribunal’s notice to show cause why the claim should not be struck out because it is not being actively pursued, both in the Tribunal’s Order[2]JUDGMENT FOR COSTS UNDER RULE 76 The claimant is ordered to pay the respondent’s costs of £3,200.REASONS
[1]As a result of non-compliance with the Tribunal’s Unless Order and no response to the Tribunal’s notice to show cause why the claim should not be struck out because it is not being actively pursued, both in the Tribunal’s Order October 2021.[2]Apart from issuing the claim, the claimant has not actively pursued her claim at all.[3]The claimant has not corresponded with the respondent in relation to a request for further and better particulars of the claimant dated 8 March 2021.[4]The claimant did not attend the Preliminary Hearing on 9 September 2021, following which an Unless Order was made and a Notice to show cause was issued asking the claimant to give reasons why the case should not be struck out. No response was received. Following non-compliance, Judgment was issued.[7]Thereafter the respondent made a costs application dated 11 November 2021.[8]The Tribunal wrote to the parties asking the respondent to explain its charging structure and for the claimant to provide a statement of means. 1 of 2 Case Number: 2304855 /2020[9]The respondent explained on 10 January 2022 that it had incurred costs of £2,000 on a fixed fee basis up to and including the Preliminary Hearing and Counsels fees for the Preliminary Hearing of £1,000.[10]The claimant did not respond.[11]In the light of the foregoing, the Tribunal concludes that the claimant’s conduct has been unreasonable. She has commenced a discrimination claim against the respondent and done nothing more. She has not engaged with the respondent or the Tribunal at all. She has not complied with Orders and she failed to attend the Preliminary Hearing.[12]Rule 76 (1) provides that a costs order may be made where a party has acted vexatiously, abusively, disruptively or otherwise unreasonably in either the bringing of the proceedings or the way that the proceedings have been conducted. The threshold for unreasonable conduct in respect of the bringing of the proceedings and/or way the proceedings have been conducted is met.[13]The claimant has not responded to the costs application or provided a statement of means either. The claimant brought the proceedings while still employed and the Tribunal has not been informed otherwise. In those circumstances, the Tribunal also exercised its discretion to make a Costs Order.[14]A Costs Order of £3,200 is made. Case Number: 2304855 /2020 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mr K Doyley Respondent: FedEx Express UK Transportation Limited RECONSIDERATION OFJUDGMENT FOR COSTS UNDER RULE 70 The claimant’s application for reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Judgment on Costs the interests of justice to do so. The Judgment is confirmed save for a correction under Rule 69 regarding the reference to £2,000 in paragraph 9, which was a typographical error and is corrected to read £2,200 and the references to ‘She’ should be replaced with ‘He’ which was also typographical.[1]The Tribunal has considered the claimant’s application dated 22 March 2022 and the attached correspondence with the Tribunal dated 16 December 2021 and the respondent’s email of 1 April 2021.[2]The claimant has not supplied any evidence of his numerous emails to the Tribunal or details about the numerous calls in 2021.[3]In addition, the claimant has not provided evidence of his time off work and the reasons for it or which period this covers. The Tribunal notes the length of this period is disputed by the respondent.[4]The claimant has not provided any supporting medical evidence.[5]The Tribunal acknowledges the claimant’s difficult personal circumstances but, without more, this does not adequately explain a complete non-engagement with the Tribunal claim.[6]The claimant has still not addressed or provided evidence of his means. 1 of 2 Case Number: 2304855 /2020[7]The Tribunal apologises for referring, in error, to the claimant in the feminine pronoun.