Mrs M French v Swalecliffe Pharmacy Ltd: 2305289/2021

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS

Case No 2305289/2021

Between

Mrs M FrenchClaimant

Swalecliffe Pharmacy LtdRespondent

Before

Employment Judge Wright

Mr M Arnold - consultant for claimant

Ms R Page - solicitor for respondent

Date 26 September 2022

JUDGMENT

The claimant’s claim of constructive unfair dismissal fails and is dismissed. The claimant withdrew her claims of: notice pay; holiday pay; arrears of pay, failure to provide a written statement of employment terms; and failure to provide itemised pay statements. 26/9/2022 COSTS JUDGMENT The respondent’s application for wasted costs against the respondent under Rule 80 fails and is dismissed.

REASONS

[1]At the hearing on 26/9/2022, the claimant’s claim of constructive unfair dismissal failed and was dismissed. The claimant withdrew her other claims of: notice pay; holiday pay; arrears of pay; failure to provide a written statement of employment terms; and failure to provide itemised pay statements.

[2]The respondent made an application for wasted costs against the claimant’s representative under Rule 80 on 11/11/2022.

[3]The claimant’s representative confirmed he is acting in pursuit of profit on 21/10/2022. He is a consultant and his company is registered as a Claims Case Number: 2305289/2021 Management Company and is regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority.

[4]As such, the claimant’s representative does not benefit from legal advice privilege, but litigation privilege does apply.

[5]As that privilege has not been waived, it is not possible to ascertain whether or not the claimant’s representative was acting upon her advice. A representative should not be held to be acting improperly, unreasonably or negligently, simply because he acted for a party whose claim was doomed to fail (Ridehalgh v Horsefield

1994 3 All ER 848

[6]It is not therefore possible to know whether or not the claimant’s representative was acting on instructions or not and therefore, no costs order is made against him.

[7]Finally, the respondent’s cost schedule lack particularisation. As it is not a costs breakdown, it is insufficient to set out what costs were wasted due to the claimant’s representative’s conduct.