Miss K Wing So v Tech Nordic Advocates and Ms J Carlsson: 3201836/2023
REASONS
FOR JUDGMENT FOR COSTS (Part 13 Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024)[1]The Respondents have requested written reasons for the Judgment made on 2 January 2025 and sent to the parties on 14 January 2025. The Judgment orders the Claimant to pay, within 28 days, £500 costs to the Respondents.[2]The request for reasons was sent to the Tribunal on 28 January 2025 and forwarded to me on 10 February 2025. I apologise to the parties for the delay in preparing and sending these reasons which has been caused by pressure of other judicial work.[3]The parties were given full oral reasons for the judgment at the Hearing on 2 January 2025 and I am certain that at the time they all understood the rationale for the costs order which arose from the Respondents’ own costs application dated 22 July 2024.[4]At the Costs Hearing I read the Costs Hearing Bundle of 113 pages and had the benefit of a written submission from the Claimant.[5]The Claimant’s remaining claims for notice pay and holiday pay and her complaint that she had not received written particulars of her employment were the subject of a settlement agreement and she withdrew all her claims on 12 June 2024. The claims were dismissed.[6]The Claimant had previously withdrawn additional complaints under another claim number 3201817/23 against the First Respondent and complaints of age, race and sex discrimination against Ms Carlsson and a Respondent named Bloxhub which is now no longer a party to these proceedings. That withdrawal and dismissal of claims took place on 22 January 2024.[7]The Respondents made a costs application on 22 July 2024 setting out the grounds of its application and attaching a schedule of costs in the total amount of £15,370. I was told that this amount has subsequently increased to a figure in excess of £ 18,000.The history of the costs issues is as follows:-[8]On 9 December 2023 the Respondents’ solicitors sent the Claimant a costs warning letter which is worded in reasonable and accurate terms. The letter invites her to withdraw her claims on the basis that neither of the then-Respondents were her employer and that such ad hoc invoices, separated by long time intervals, which she submitted to the First Respondent had been paid in full. The Claimant did not respond to the costs warning. I note from the pleadings that it had always been denied by all actual and potential Respondents in these proceedings that the Claimant was ever an employee of any one of them and /or it was contended that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction.[9]On 16 February 2024 at a Preliminary Hearing before Employment Judge Jones the Claimant withdrew her claim of unpaid wages.[10]Employment Judge Jones ordered her to say by 29 March 2024 whether she was withdrawing her complaints against the Second Respondent (Ms Carlsson) because she was not her employer and to explain, ‘if not why not.’ The Claimant did not comply with this order. EJ Jones assisted the Claimant with identifying sources of free legal help.[11]I am satisfied that the Claimant did not comply with the other orders listed in the Respondents’ costs application in a table at the foot of their letter of 22 July 2024. In particular, she did not respond to the Respondents’ application dated1 April 2024 for a strike out/deposit order which was listed to be heard on 19 June 2024. Her only response was to withdraw her remaining claims very shortly before the scheduled hearing and after the Respondents had been put to the expense of time, cost and resources detailed in the costs schedule.[12]The Claimant is an unrepresented litigant but I took into account that she did have advice and assistance from the Citizens Advice Bureau and I have seen copies of detailed correspondence sent to her by that organisation.[13]In all the circumstances of this case I am satisfied that the Claimant failed to comply with Tribunal orders and did not respond meaningfully and promptly to the Respondents’ strike out/deposit application with the result that she has conducted the proceedings unreasonably. Additionally, her claims against the Respondents and particularly the Second Respondent for notice pay, holiday pay and failure to provide the statutory written particulars of employment have been pursued without reasonable prospect of success.[14]I exercised my discretion to have regard to the Claimant’s ability to pay a costs order. She gave evidence on oath and responded to cross examination and questions from the Employment Judge. I am satisfied that her evidence was credible and truthful.[15]The Claimant said that she had relocated from London to Scotland to reduce her costs of living including high rents in London and that, having failed to establish a career and /or a business in London, she was engaged in a new small start-up partnership project from which she currently draws no income.[16]The Claimant had the financial support of her parents from Hong Kong and they promised this support for a period of two years from the date she moved to the UK. However, she now feels that she cannot continue to ask them for the large amounts of money necessary to keep her living and working in London and she has no significant earnings, savings, or capital of her own. She has no dependants and no family living close by in England and/or Scotland.[17]I decline to conclude, as the Respondents invite me to do, that the Claimant has access to unlimited funds from her family; there is no evidence of this situation.Her Linked-in profile, for example at page 96 of the Costs Hearing Bundle, does not indicate reliable or substantial earnings from any established employer or business.[18]The Claimant’s bank statement shows only a small balance of just over £300 and she has described her declining health including mental health difficulties.[19]In those circumstances I fix the amount of costs payable by her to the Respondents at £500.