Mr G Pink v N2O Ltd: 3302404/2023
REASONS
[1]On 24 May 2024 I prepared a judgment in this case in the following terms: “1. All claims except for the claimant’s claim of protected disclosure detriments are dismissed on withdrawal.[2]The claimant must pay £200 to the respondent in respect of costs.” 2. This was promulgated on 3 July 2024 and the same day the claimant requested written reasons for the judgment. That request has been referred to me today.[3]I think the first element of the judgment is self-explanatory and, I hope, not controversial. The claims were dismissed under rule 52 on their withdrawal by the claimant. I take it that the request for written reasons is addressed to the second part of the judgment – the costs award.[4]The costs application made by the respondent was for the costs of the previous case management hearing, which the respondent says was, by reason of the claimant’s fault, ineffective. I take it that this is an application based on unreasonable conduct of proceedings or unreasonable bringing of at least part of the claim.[5]For Mr Jackson, this is the latest act of oppression wrought by a disreputable employer that refuses to face up to its social obligations. Mr Jackson says that the respondent and its lawyers have been heavy handed, oppressive and the costs are far too much.[6]It does appear that the respondent has taken the view that no expense is to be spared and no stone left unturned in defending the claim. Perhaps that is understandable in a claim that is unashamedly an attack on what is likely to be a significant part of their business model. However, it is not the case that the respondent’s or its lawyers have acted improperly in their response to the claim. Quite the reverse could be said. At an early stage, in their letter of 12 July 2023, they made many of the points that I was later to make in the first preliminary hearing. Rather than acknowledge or constructively engage with these, Mr Jackson has taken them as a further indication of the respondent’s disreputable and oppressive hostility.[7]At the heart of this has been the difficulty of converting the claimant’s sense of injustice into a viable legal claim. I regret to say that the claim as originally drafted was comprised more of rhetoric in support of the overall justice of the claimant’s claim than it was of any sound legal claims. The claims originally brought have almost all be entirely abandoned. Only the whistleblowing detriment claims survive, and they are the subject of a deposit order.[8]This may not be considered unusual if the claimant had been representing himself, but he has had the benefit of professional representation throughout.[9]I do consider that to have two preliminary hearings has been unnecessary. One hearing would have sufficed if the claim had been originally brought on a legally sound basis, which is was almost entirely not. This is unreasonable conduct of proceedings and unreasonable bringing of at least part of the claim.[10]I consider that the respondent is, in principle, entitled to its costs of the previous preliminary hearing. I have said that no expense has been spared, but that is between the respondent and its lawyers. I would consider £2,000 to be a reasonable amount of costs for that hearing.[11]I have to take into account the claimant’s means in making any costs award. Mr Jackson did not address me directly on this in the context of the costs award, but it was considered for the deposit order. I have only partial evidence of the resources available to the claimant, but that suggests that he does not have much money. It is, though, an incomplete picture. The best I think I can do as regards the claimant’s means is to reduce the costs award to £200, and that is what I will award.[1]On 24 May 2024 I prepared a judgment dismissing (on withdrawal) all of the claimant’s claims except claims of protected interest disclosure detriments. This included a costs award. I also made a deposit order in respect of the claims of protected interest disclosure detriments.[2]I understand that the deposit order has been paid but is currently under appeal.[3]On 17 July 2024 the respondent made an application for reconsideration of the judgment, or alternatively an application for a further public preliminary hearing. Essentially this is an application to extend the deposit order to a strike out (on the basis that the remaining claims have no, rather than little, reasonable prospect of success). In support of this application the respondent has provided a witness statement.[5]On this being referred to me I directed tribunal staff to request a response from the claimant to the application. That was received on 11 October 2024. This was referred to me on 24 October 2024 and I first saw it on my return to the office on 3 November 2024.[6]I am not at all sure that applying for reconsideration is a correct approach by the respondent in these circumstances, but in any event I am refusing that application for reconsideration under rule 72(1) on the basis that there is no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked, Case No: 3302404/2023 and for similar reasons I refuse the application for a further public preliminary hearing.[7]The fact that the respondent’s application is supported by a witness statement seems itself to suggest that the point in question is unlikely to be suitable for the summary determination the respondent seeks. Unsurprisingly, the claimant does not accept the respondent’s evidence on this point. While in my deposit order I have found that the claimant has little reasonable prospect of success in establishing causation for the alleged detriments that is some distance from what the respondent is now seeking – a finding that there is no reasonable prospect of success. I refuse the application for reconsideration or for a further public preliminary hearing.[8]At the end of his most recent email the claimant’s representative says “after the appeal, dates for the hearing, disclosure and exchange of witness statements can be agreed”.[9]In an earlier tribunal order I said that further orders would not be made pending a decision from the claimant on whether to pay the deposit order.[10]The claimant has paid the deposit order and the claims that are subject to the deposit order will continue. In those circumstances so far as I can tell, aside from any points of principle, the practical effect of a successful appeal will be the return of the claimant’s deposit money and removal of the possible costs consequences that can arise where a deposit order has been issued. It seems to me that in those circumstances the claim can continue to a final hearing and does not need to await the outcome or the appeal, which may not be known for a year or more. Accordingly I have asked for a case management hearing to be listed by video to make arrangements for the final hearing. If it is either parties’ case that the final hearing cannot be listed pending resolution of the appeal (and that therefore the claim needs to be stayed) that is a matter that can be considered by the judge at that preliminary hearing, and I do not intend my comments in this paragraph to bind that judge’s discretion on the point.[1]All claims except for the claimant’s claim of protected disclosure detriments are dismissed on withdrawal.[2]The claimant must pay £200 to the respondent in respect of costs.