Mr D Hughes v Aardvark Clear Mine Ltd: 4103151/2023

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS

Case No 4103151/2023

Between

Mr D HughesClaimant

Aardvark Clear Mine LtdRespondent

Before

Employment Judge Childe

In person for claimant

Mr St John Claire (CEO (instructed by respondent)) for respondent

Date 29 February 2024

JUDGMENT

[1]The application to strike out the claim under Employment Tribunal Rule 37(1)(a) because it has no reasonable prospect of success and under Rule 37(1)(b) because the manner in which the proceedings have been conducted has been scandalous, unreasonable or vexatious is dismissed.

[2]The application that the claimant should pay a deposit as a condition of continuing with any specific allegation or argument in his claim under Employment Tribunal Rule 39(1) is dismissed. Case Number: 4103151/2023

[1]The Claimant's claim of direct age discrimination is not well-founded and is dismissed.

[2]The Claimant's claim of harassment related to age is not well-founded and is dismissed. Any request for written reasons must be made within 14 days of the date on which this judgment was

REASONS

These written reasons are provided in response to the Claimant's request. Introduction

Issues

[1]The issues in the case are set out in the order of EJ Kenward following a preliminary hearing on 6 October 2023. Evidence and Submissions

[2]We were provided with two document bundles the Respondent had prepared:2.1 the first running to numbered page 348;

2.2 the second as attached to the Respondent's skeleton argument.

[3]We heard live evidence and received witness statements from:3.1 David Llewellyn Baldwin Hughes, the Claimant;

3.2 Kate Lawlor, the Respondent's Operations Manager;

3.3 Ashley St John-Claire, the Respondent's Quality Safety Health and Environment Director;

3.4 David St John-Claire, the Respondent's CEO;

3.5 Harry Parsons, Recruitment Consultant with Holt Engineering Recruitment;

3.6 Paul Sowden, the Respondent's Quality Assurance Manager.

[4]We admitted into evidence additional documents produced by the parties as the hearing went on:4.1 Interview and score sheets produced by the Respondent;

4.2 A screenshot of a job advertisement produced by the Claimant.

[5]We received written and oral closing submissions from both parties. Applications

[6]The Tribunal file contains a huge volume of correspondence, most of which came from the Claimant, in which he sought strike out or made other applications. There were also emails from the Respondent objecting to the Claimant's conduct and making their own applications. The Respondent's earlier strike out application had been considered and rejected by EJ Childe. We decided not to deal with any of these applications (to the extent they had not already been determined) as preliminary matters but instead invited the parties to make representations relating to strike out in the course of their closing submissions. Facts Witness Evidence

[7]We found the Claimant to be an unreliable and incredible witness. His account of the events surrounding his unsuccessful application for employment with the Respondent has changed and developed over time. Importantly, what he tells us now about disputed matters is inconsistent with contemporaneous documentary evidence.

Law

[8]The Claimant is prone to using excessive, aggressive and inflammatory language. The volume of his correspondence is also disproportionate. Indeed an order was made by EJ Kenward on 6 October 2023 in the following terms: In the circumstances, I ordered that Claimant shall immediately desist from using inflammatory or abusive comments in correspondence with the Respondent's Solicitors, shall correspond respectfully and politely with the Respondent's Solicitors and shall restrict the volume of e-mails he sends to those reasonably required to progress the litigation.

[9]Despite this order, there has been no reduction in either the volume or tone of the Claimant's correspondence.

Facts

[10]The Claimant can also be calculating in what he says. We note that in much correspondence with the Respondent, the Claimant had described himself as a “lawyer”. The Claimant is not a barrister, solicitor or legal executive. He does not have a law degree or any other legal qualification. In the course of answering the question whether he was a lawyer, the Claimant said he had worked as a paralegal and the term “lawyer” was not reserved to those with professional legal qualifications. The Claimant then volunteered that he was “half-way through enrolling in CILEX”.

[11]The Claimant has used the name David Casquerio previously and did so when appealing against a wasted costs order made against him when he had been acting as a party’s representative; see Casqueiro and Barclays Bank

UKEAT/0085/12/MAA

. Notably, the Claimant had been using the name Baldwin in the Tribunal but had changed this to Casqueiro by the time the matter reached the EAT and the findings at first instance included: “…he tells me he is to take the Institute of Legal Executives qualification”

[12]We do not accept the Claimant's evidence about enrolment in CILEX. He gave substantially the same explanation to a Judge 12 or more years ago and yet is no further forward. Our conclusion is that the Claimant wrote to Ms Lawlor, Mr St John-Claire and others saying he was a lawyer, intending that they would believe him to be a legally qualified professional, thereby lending more weight to his threats of legal action that would bring dire consequences, financial and otherwise.

[13]The Claimant was cross-examined as to the job history in his CV, as whilst this recorded seamless employment with different employers in engineering, auditing and quality roles since July 2008, that appeared inconsistent with the two-year custodial sentence he received in April 2008. We were referred to press reports recording his conviction and sentencing under the name David Casqueiro (the Claimant admits this was him) for blackmail, attempting to pervert the course of justice and attempting to obtain a pecuniary advantage by deception, following various demands for payment made of employers with the threat of unjustified legal action.

[14]The Claimant told us he had previously been employed as a paralegal by a firm of solicitors. We were referred to an order made by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (“SRA”) in the following terms: David Casqueiro Prohibited This person is not a solicitor. They are in this register because we have prohibited law firms we regulate from employing them. Prohibited From 01/07/2010. ID number 551160

[15]Notwithstanding the Claimant does not admit this order applies to him, we are satisfied it does. The name David Casquiero is not especially common. The making of an order in these terms by the SRA would be consistent with the offences of which the Claimant was convicted, as such a person would not be suitable for employment by a firm of solicitors. The order would have come into effect not long after his release from prison. It is more likely than not the Claimant is the prohibited person.

[16]The Respondent's witnesses were clear, concise and credible. They gave a wholly plausible account of events and this was, frequently, corroborated by documents created at the time. Background

[17]The Respondent business is concerned with the design, development and manufacture of land mine clearance vehicles and associated counter explosive ordnance clearance technology.

[18]The Claimant gives his date of birth as 17 May 1954 and on that basis, would have been 69 years of age at the beginning of 2023.

[19]In January 2023, the Respondent decided to recruit to a number of new positions, one of which was a Quality Assurance Manager. Tim Smith, the Respondent’s Project Director, supported colleagues in drawing-up an appropriate job description, which included: Quality Assurance Manager / Integrated System Manager QSHE Professional with demonstratable experience of leading improvements across an IMS to ISO9001/14001/45001. Will be able to demonstrate systems development, auditing and coaching experience, ideally in Defence, Military Automotive or Aerospace manufacturing, with a positive approach and keen eye for detail. Likely to hold Chartered status with organisations such as IEMA, IOSH or CQI, or be working towards one or more. An experienced Quality Assurance Manager is required to lead and manage a multi-disciplinary team across the business and strategic partnerships in our supply chain; developing relationships to give clarity, whilst developing digital platform for Quality Assurance, Compliance and Control of our innovative products and services. Responsibilities:• Nominally projects involve defence and security products, with a majority involving specialist vehicles.

• Working closely with Senior Engineers, Project staff and Strategic Partners to ensure quality decisions support operations.

• Ensuring conformance to appropriate standards of production, testing and compliance requirements.

• Engaging directly at a management level with internal and client teams to shape and maintain budgets and forecast expenditure.

• Devise and implement auditing and inspection requirements in a digital space to enable real time oversight of products in build.

• To lead the quality team, management reviews, investigations and present data to stakeholders.

• They will be subject matter expert on OSH, Environmental and Quality systems, taking a lead on Sustainability, GHG, Life Cycle and Carbon Capture.

• Examine and test existing contracts and support supplier audits in line with our IMS.

• Track and report key functional metrics to reduce expense, improve effectiveness, minimise non-conformances and thereby reduce the overall costs of Quality.

• Collaborate with key persons to ensure clarity of the specifications and expectations of the company.

• To be the BSI Point of Contact for Third Party Audits.

Conclusion

[20]A list of questions to be asked of candidates at an initial interview was devised and incorporated in a document with space to record the answers given. The intention was to have a consistent, recorded process.

[21]The documents containing these questions and notes of the answers given by the Claimant and Mr Sowden (the successful candidate) were disclosed late in the proceedings. When Ms Lawlor was giving evidence, the Judge asked her whether and how the questions, answers and scores were recorded at the initial interviews. She explained this information had been incorporated into documents but they had not been disclosed and were not in the hearing bundle. The Judge expressed surprise that such obviously relevant documents had not been produced. The Respondent's representative, who had been recently instructed (the Company had previously been represented by its CEO) said she would take instructions.

[22]Over the lunch break following Ms Lawlor’s evidence, the Respondent sent an email to the Tribunal and Claimant attaching additional documents in this regard. On resuming at 2pm, the Judge asked the Claimant whether he agreed these new documents should be admitted into evidence. He did not. The Judge said that rather than losing time at this stage on a contested application to admit the new evidence, the Claimant would be given time to consider his position and we would deal with the point at the start of the following day. During the afternoon, however, the Claimant sought to cross-examine Ashley St John-Claire on the new documents. The Judge intervened and explained that the documents were not before the Tribunal at that stage and if he wished to ask questions of the witness about the content of the documents, it would be necessary to admit them. At that stage the Claimant agreed the new documents could be admitted. We took a short pause to obtain the documents and read them before crossexamination continued. The Claimant says the documents are recent forgeries, prepared quickly following the Judge’s observations. We do not agree. It is more likely and we find these are genuine documents. The time available to complete the exercise the Claimant suggests was insufficient. Furthermore, the documents have the appearance of genuine interview notes, not least because they are somewhat sketchy in parts. The meaning of some notes and whether they record answers or the interviewers’ views, is not always clear. This is, however, consistent with what often happens when interviewers are trying to ask questions, think about the answers being given and record them, all during a live and time-limited process (there were back to back 30-minute interviews). Furthermore, if the Respondent had gone about fabricating evidence, it would have been a simple matter for it to record more clearly in the documents further examples of the matters the witnesses say counted against the Claimant.

[23]A number of agencies were approached to identify potential candidates. Holt Engineering Recruitment (“Holt”) put forward several candidates for this role, including the Claimant, Mr Hughes.

[24]Mr Hughes’ CV disclosed relevant experience and qualifications, including ISO 9001:2015/IATF 16949:2016 Lead Auditor Training Course, which he completed in 2017. The Claimant is very proud of this qualification and characterises it as being the highest in the UK. The Claimant also listed various other qualifications in his CV: Quality Management Systems, Lead Auditor, Quality Assurance, Regulatory Affairs, QA/RA, IVDD IVDR, ISO 9001, ISO 45001, ISO 14001, ISO 5001, AS 9100 Rev D, IATF 16949, ISO 13485 MEDICAL DEVICES, MDD - MDR, CE MARKING, COVID 19, GENOMIC DNA MAPPING, PHARMA, REAGENTS, BIOCHEMICALS, FDA CFR 21 Part 820, GMP, GDP, Reagents, Biochemicals, QA/RA, CAPAs, TECHNICAL FILES, DHF DESIGN HISTORY FILES, MEDICAL DEVICE FILES, IS017025, ISO14971, VALIDATION 10 OP PQ

[25]The Respondent received circa 20 applications and from these it invited 8 candidates, each of whom appeared on paper to be appropriately qualified and competent, to attend an initial interview, conducted by Teams. The Claimant was invited to such an interview.

[26]Ms Lawlor, the Respondent's Operations Manager who was coordinating the various recruitment exercises, began to receive correspondence direct from the Claimant about his application. This was unexpected, as candidates did not usually approach the Respondent in this way prior to their interview. Furthermore, the Claimant having been referred by Holt, communication was expected to be channelled through the agency.

[27]On 29 January 2023, the Claimant wrote to Ms Lawlor, attaching a certificate for his ISO9001 qualification and saying: 1 I wish to apply for the advertised role of Quality Assurance Manager Warwick 2 I live in Coventry and am Lead Auditor by BSI ISO9001 2015, Lead Auditor ISO 14001 and Lead Auditor IS045001 3 I believe I have been put forward by the Agency but for now I am simply presenting my BSI Lead Auditor Certificate Special Charter […] 6 I can deliver to Aardvark their ISO9001 2015 Certification Accreditation in 6 months average time line […] 8 Because you have evolving design - design is a heavy component in ISO9001 2015 Certification Accreditation

[28]The Claimant had, of course, already applied and been invited to interview. Ms Lawlor replied, thanking the Claimant for his certificate, reminding him of the time and date of his interview and saying she look forward to speaking with him then. Five minutes later, Claimant wrote to her: I wish to reiterate my interest in Aardvark and the potential is enormous Also I can deliver ISO9001 2015 Quality Management Certification Accreditation which for a company designing de mining vehicles is still quite complex I am Lead Auditor by BSI meaning I can satisfy your requirements of a BSI Lead Auditor

Conclusion

[29]The Claimant wrote again on 5 February 2023 in the early hours of the morning, saying that he wished to discuss ISO9001 2015 accreditation and setting out the various steps he proposed to obtain this for the Respondent.

[30]Ms Lawlor, not unreasonably, considered it was inappropriate for the Claimant to be writing to her in this way.

[31]Rather than engaging in further correspondence with the Claimant at this stage, Ms Lawlor contacted Holt and requested they ask him to direct any further communication through the agency. One of the recruitment consultants, Harry Parsons, got in touch with the Claimant and delivered this message. Interview

[32]The Claimant's interview took place by Teams on 7 February 2023.

[33]Whilst the Claimant said there were either four or five members of the Respondent's panel, his evidence in this regard was unreliable. He did not give names or descriptions of them and appeared uncertain. Much of his correspondence appeared to state or at least imply that the CEO was present but we noted he did not challenge the witness evidence of David St John Claire, which included that he was not present and took no part in scoring or assessing the Claimant. We accepted the evidence of the Respondent's witnesses in this regard. The panel comprised Ms Lawlor, Mr Smith and Ashley St John-Claire. They welcomed the Claimant and proceeded to ask the questions set out in the interview documents we admitted into evidence. We also accept that all of the candidates were asked the same questions and given the same 30-minute opportunity to answer and put themselves forward to best effect.

[34]Whilst we accept the document recording the Claimant's answers is genuine, as we have already observed, some of the notes made of the answers are sketchy and it is not always clear whether the words written are those used by the Claimant or the Respondent's characterisation of his answer.

[35]We also accepted the evidence of Ms Lawlor and Ashley St John-Claire as to the answers given by the Claimant and the way he presented himself more generally. He sat in such a way as to not being facing his video camera but instead presenting a side-on view, which the panel found un-engaging.

[36]We do not find the Respondent did or said any of the things the Claimant alleges in support of his harassment claim, namely:36.1 The Respondent would present questions to the Claimant “and then answer those questions himself making fun and mocking the [Claimant] so the Claimant felt diminished and inferiorized";

36.2 The Respondent mocked and ridiculed the Claimants qualifications;

36.3 When the Claimant was asked a question on protecting lives of children in warn torn areas, the interviewing team “laughed, mocked, ridiculed the Claimant to inferiorize him and make him feel worthless".

[37]No plausible reason has been advanced for the members of the Respondent's panel to have behaved in this way. Nor could the Claimant identify the person who he said did any of this. When asked by the Tribunal, he simply replied “the youngest person”. In his oral evidence the Claimant said that as soon as the panel saw him they looked down at the floor. In his closing submissions he said this action implied that they wondered which care home he had come from. We do not consider this is at all likely. It entirely possible that members of the panel (who were conducting this process remotely) looked down at documents or the computer keyboard in front of them. It had nothing whatsoever to do with the Claimant's age. The Claimant had not given an age or date of birth on his CV, nor did the agency provide this information. The panel would have nothing other than the most general impression of the Claimant's age, given they were observing him through video conferencing as he sat sideways on to the camera.

[38]Each of the Respondent's witnesses struck us as serious professional person and even if they had formed a negative view of the Claimant, we do not believe they would have behaved in such a way as to convey this impression let alone done any of the outrageous things the Claimant now suggests. There was no question asked of the Claimant about protecting the lives of children in war-torn areas. One of his answers to another question did, however, include him saying that he would wish to ensure the safety of those in areas that had been demined. We do not believe it is at all likely that the panel would have laughed at this. The Respondent is in the business of making mined conflict zones safe once more. It is no laughing matter and we are satisfied the Respondent's witnesses and other personnel take it very seriously. There is no real scope to for the Claimant to have mistakenly misconstrued what was said and done. Unfortunately, we are driven to the conclusion that the Claimant has fabricated these allegations in order to support his claim.

[39]We accepted the evidence of the Respondent's witnesses both as to the content of the Claimant's replies and the manner of his presentation. In particular, we find that the Claimant told the panel several times that he could get them ISO9001 accreditation. This is consistent with the unsolicited email correspondence he sent before the interview and the note recorded on his interview sheet: ISO9001 – cannot understand we have it already

[40]In repeatedly asserting his ability to obtain ISO9001 accreditation for the Respondent, the Claimant undermined his own prospects. The Respondent already had this accreditation and did not need a new recruit to obtain it for them. The Claimant could have discovered this information for himself (by looking at the company website) and it gave the panel the impression he had not done adequate research about the Respondent in preparing his application. Furthermore, the panel had to tell the Claimant several times that they already had ISO9001 accreditation and the need for repetition suggested the Claimant was not listening to or could not take on board the information being given to him. The Claimant also described how he would only operate as he sees correct and did not appear open to the possibility of alternate working methods that colleagues might suggest. Overall, the panel concluded the Claimant was a weak candidate. He was scored 2 out of 5 and did not proceed to the next stage. The Respondent's scoring guide provided: 2 Less than satisfactory More negative ability indicators evident

[41]The Claimant appears unable to accept that he could be scored in this way because of his ISO9001 qualification, which he says the Respondent needed. The Respondent's explanation is a simple one. All of the candidates invited to interview had the paper qualifications and experience to indicate they were competent. The selection process was intended to identifying the best of them from the answers they gave and how they presented themselves during interview. The Respondent wanted the person who could satisfy all the criteria in the job description to the fullest extent. The role was about more than ISO9001 accreditation, which the Respondent already had. Broad duties encompassing, quality, health, safety and the environment were included. During his evidence at the Tribunal, the Judge asked the Claimant whether he could see how telling the Respondent repeatedly that he could get them something they told him they already had might be unhelpful to his application. The Claimant replied that he had been telling them how he would retain their accreditation. This was a recent change in his evidence and we do not accept it is true. 7 February 2023

[42]The Claimant wrote to Mr Parsons shortly following his interview on 7 February 2023, in the following terms: Went very well - so you have in Aardvark a highly successful and complex operation I was able to read through their You Tube videos and study their de mining vehicles so the interview became quite profound discussing the demining and assurance that a parcel of land had been demined successfully so no mines left and the area is clear They are ISO9001 so we talked about the GEN2 and they asked me and I reiterated that they are concerned on the protection of the operator ( they use autonomous vehicles so the operator is not present or in the vehicle ) but I still submitted that the critical area is still assuring that an area once cleared had in fact been cleared We then discuss salary £55000 and finally my notice period and distance from Warwick So there were no embarrassing moments and it all flowed well and I think I was able to put across that I was excited at the prospect of joining the company I think they will give you feedback tomorrow for a Stage Two interview I presume onsite in Warwick so if successful I would be invited to a second stage interview on site

[43]We are reinforced in our view that the interview was conducted properly by the terms in which the Claimant wrote shortly thereafter. In cross-examination, the Claimant denied any inconsistency between the email he wrote to Mr Parsons and what he now alleges was said and done during the interview. He also said that he would not have raised any concerns because he was hoping to obtain this job (i.e. he did not want to criticise the Respondent and jeopardise his chances). We do not accept the Claimant’s evidence of this. The Claimant’s email is not merely silent with respect to the matters he now relies upon for age discrimination and harassment, rather he wrote to Mr Parsons in glowing terms. He was very positive on the process and enthusiastic about the prospect of joining the Respondent. We do not believe he would have written in this way if the interview had unfolded as he now alleges. On the contrary, it is far more likely the Claimant, who undoubtedly has a very high opinion of his own qualifications and presentational ability, left this interview believing it had gone well and he would proceed to the next stage. His words to Mr Parsons reflected that belief. 8 February 2023

[44]Notwithstanding the Claimant having been reminded to route any correspondence through Holt, he wrote to Ms Lawlor direct again on 8 February 2023. He began by saying “I was extremely impressed yesterday with the Team”, before going on to set out various reasons why he should be appointed to the role and “I am very keen to be considered for this role as I truly believe in your team…” The Claimant did not refer to any of the comments or behaviour he now alleges.

[45]Ms Lawlor contacted Mr Parsons to advise that the Respondent would not be taking the Claimant's application forward. She wrote: Please tell David that while we appreciate that he is qualified and competent, his approach is too direct and specific. Other candidates have proved a better fit with Aardvark by laying emphasis on how they work and collaborate with the team, and we did not feel that this would be David's approach. We had to confirm more than once during interview that we are already IS09001 certified and in fact in our third year of recertification. We wish David well for his next position.

[46]Mr Parsons got in touch with the Claimant by telephone to let him know the outcome. He explained the Respondent’s reasons consistently with what he had been told by Ms Lawlor. In response to this unwelcome news, the Claimant’s enthusiasm quickly dissipated and he said “Aardvark and you can fuck off", before hanging up. We do not accept that Mr Parsons told the Claimant he had not been selected because of his age. Ms Lawlor had said no such thing to Mr Parsons and there would be no reason for him speak in these terms. Furthermore, if Mr Parsons had made such an astonishing declaration, it would have been the first thing the Claimant complained about in his subsequent emails and it was not.

[47]Shortly thereafter, the Claimant began to send emails to Mr Parsons in the terms set out below: 10.24am All submissions have been made to Aardvark I had not been totally presented perhaps because we missed out something The demining vehicles are in fact automotive so I am Lead Auditor by BSI in Automotive as well which is IATF16949 2016 for which I also have special extended training This is important because Aardvark have to sort out critical spares for the customer and maintenance of the vehicle So I had not made my presentation on a spare parts and maintenance level Aardvark gave me a buzz to be honest and like their Team and they could be very successful and could see an order of million of vehicles especially in Ukraine So great journey really enjoyed They need a guy with ISO at BSI Level then they also need a guy with Automotive which is my case 11.10am Just to clarify Aardvark after they gave you the exclusivity they gave the recruitment to another Agency There is no doubt these are de mining vehicles and they posed to be critical quality assurance considerations yesterday in the interview which I felt I had not totally replied to For instance it was essential that once demined an area there were no hidden mines that could explode after the vehicle cleared an area The quality assurance implications are huge for a vehicle that acts to explode mines and I think they are window shopping and have no intention of seriously discussing the role - for instance we did not discuss spare parts for the customer or maintenance and servicing and training which all fall under the remit of quality assurance So yes Aardvark had engaged another Agency and I don't think they are seriously trying to engage anyone Maintenance of the vehicles and deciding on spare parts seems to me to be essential I don't think they have other candidates - that is just an excuse and in my view not true at all The other aspect is that for the MOD everyone has to have SC Security Clearance including the suppliers So they are not serious in their search for a Quality Assurance figure I am extremely experienced and qualified and competent 11.34am As you can see Aardvark brought in another Agency and in my view far inferior to you So Aardvark are not serious and are only window shopping I see this behaviour constantly by companies The fact is that after they gave you exclusivity for the role they brought in another Agency far inferior to your performances and candidates I don't know how you punish this level of dishonesty or even if you should - but this really upset me 12.11 pm Harry as closure I have been shortlisted as Quality and Assurance Manager for Estee Lauder and am attending a Teams tomorrow I am world class so in the future you may contact me for Quality Manager Quality Assurance Manager For Aardvark I think I should have been allowed a second stage interview on site so I think they are just bloody rude I invested a lot of training in my Certificates for BSI and they are searching for a BSI Lead Auditor so Aardvark is a company that shows a shell of competence but inside they are hot air and a bluff which is a common place unfortunately So let's forget about Aardvark and wish them all the best 21.23pm Tomorrow I am interviewed as Quality Assurance Manager for the giant Estee Lauder in cosmetics This raises the question that I am truly at the 1% best in the world and really know my stuff I take an interest watch you tube videos and prepare Companies interview me and sometimes they have obscure reasons for making me fail I really liked Aardvark and your performance was impeccable and there was no reason why I was not allowed a Stage Two interview on site I was a perfect match to their own job description I have decided in future to measure companies by their adherence to their own requirements detailed in their job description Aardvark wanted a BSI liaison which I could be So it was not about me failing but they not wanting to engage me but rather maliciously They did not want me to succeed So as closure you may put me forward to positions that require a Quality Manager with a very strong experience in zero defects but the company must be very determined for zero defects as deliverable Also I am very good but exceptionally good in ISOs Estee Lauder puts me at best in the world - so yes Aardvark did not want me to succeed and when I saw them putting up a second advertisment after you had done very good work and deserved to continue I should have withdrawn in protest and in future that is what I will do You deserved in seeing your candidate placed and earning the commission because you are also working Aardvark in my view were dishonest and I should have pulled out when the signals were there they were bringing another Agency in Finally this was strange and odd - the MOD Ministry of Defence requires always SC Security Clearance and they never raised Security Clearance suggesting that the MOD is not one of their clients SC Security Clearance acts for me normally as a catalyst as I am SC Cleared by Rolls Royce and my decision is simply Aardvark did not want me to succeed in getting the job

[48]Notably at this stage, despite making wide-ranging complaints about the Respondent's approach, the Claimant still said nothing about age and nor did he raise the other matters he now alleges. This would have been the first thing he referred to if the interview had unfolded as he now alleges or indeed, if Mr Parsons had told him that age was the reason for his rejection. His explanation for not referring to the harassment he says occurred during interview, namely that he was hoping to get the job did not want to put the Respondent off, could not apply to these emails following his rejection. Successful Candidate

[49]Mr Sowden had his first interview on 21 February 2023. He was 43 years old at the time. Mr Sowden had the following qualifications:• Chartered Quality Professional, Member of The Chartered Quality Institute. Since 2018

• Engineering Technician, The Institute of Engineering and Technology. Since 2019

• Change Management Practitioner, APMG. 2022

• IOSH Managing Safely. 2012

• IOSH Risk Assessor. 2012

• Lean Leadership Academy. 2022

• Defence Academy Safety Occurrence Investigator. 2022

• Defence Academy Safety Occurrence Review Group. 2022

• BAe Systems Six Sigma Yellow Belt. 2013

• Defence Academy Continuous Improvement Facilitator. 2012

• Military Specialist Training School Quality Audit Skills ISO 9001 Auditor course. 2011

[50]During his interview, Mr Sowden explained that his auditing qualification having been obtained in a military context, he was using the funding available to him on leaving the RAF to obtain the civilian ISO lead auditor qualification, which he would have shortly.

[51]The panel were very impressed with Mr Sowden and the answers he gave to the set questions. Their view was that he had evidenced the requirements of the job description fully and they awarded a score of 5. Mr Sowden was invited to a second interview, this time in person, which took place on 27 February 2023. At this stage, candidates were required to prepare a short presentation about project quality. They were also subject to more detailed questioning. Mr Sowden was successful. He was offered the job and accepted this.

[52]Mr Sowden received his CQI and IRCAPR328: QMS ISO 9001:2015 Lead Auditor – 18223 accreditation following attendance on the relevant 4-day course between 20 and 24 March 2023. He took up his position with the Respondent on 12 June 2023. Claimant's Further Correspondence

[53]On 12 March 2024, the Claimant wrote to Ms Lawlor alleging age discrimination for the first time: 1 Pursuant to the e mail today to the CEO I have found that you are still advertising for a Quality Assurance Manager and you refuse to engage me for a combination of age and no nonsense attitude 2 I think I was age discriminated at the interview pursuant to the UK Equality Act 2010 3 I hold all the qualifications and experience to succeed in the role as Quality Assurance Manager of Aardvark and you rejected me because of age and a gravitas no nonsense attitude 4 I am even Lead Auditor BSI point of contact 5 I am lawyer and I believe you have discriminated me against other candidates due to age discrimination 6 My observations to you on mine clearing and training and health and safety of operators was superb and you were more interested in window shopping rather than selecting the right candidates 7 In Quality Assurance Manager real for a mine sweeping vehicle the key elements are the design of the vehicle the materials applied how the blasts can penetrate the driver and kill or maim him the quality of the training and life saving procedures and the thoroughness of the testing process 8 All of which you made fun of laughed and mocked 9 I wish to know and sent to this e mail why you did not engage me for this role as Quality Assurance Manager as I am a 100% fit for the role 10 And why it was you reacted angrily when I communicated directly to you - and why you obviously rejected 10 candidates for the role me included 111 have gravitas and a no nonsense attitude so I wish to know explained by you to me why I was not discriminated in the campaign to find a Quality Assurance Manager and why - knowing that you are still looking for a Quality Assurance Manager - you still reject my application and neither have the job or submitted me to a Stage Two interview 12 You told me you had gone with another candidate but the job advertisment for the Quality Assurance Manager is still being advertised on your careers website 13 You have ten days to submit to me a reply less you find yourself in front of a Judge answering for breach of the UK 2010 Equality Act for age discrimination 14 I do not like being played with - you are still advertising for a Quality Assurance Manager on your careers website after you told me you had decided on another candidate

[54]Whilst the Claimant had referred to an email of the same day to the CEO, it appears this was sent the following day, 13 March 2023: 1 I am David L B Hughes of Coventry 2 You are advertising for a Quality Assurance Manager on your website 3 I am applying for that role 4 You will consider my Application for the role and you may or not make me a job offer 5 Such job offer is for your offices in USA and Saudi Arabia 6 Within your job specification you require a candidate with huge muscular prowess in ISQ9001 2015 – I am Lead Auditor ISO 9001 2015 and there are only 3 people in the UK with my qualifications 7 Your de mining vehicles are part automotive and I am Lead Auditor trained by BSI in IATF16949 2016 8 As such I want to be given the job as your Quality Assurance Manager for USA and Saudi Arabia and if you establish base in near Russia or Ukraine 9 I have issued proceedings against you at the Employment Tribunal and the ACAS process has started 10 ACAS is an entity that intervenes to attempt free no cost mediation conciliation 11 Kate Lawlor will see on her a substantial costs order for having acted unreasonably by manipulating agencies and candidates so there was not a stable platform to make a decision on who to make the job offer to 12 With reference to me I was at Rolls Royce the middle management trainer on root cause analysis 13 When at the Hearing for Directions I am asked to present a schedule of losses although the initial offer was tabled at £55000 annum I would be working with USA and Saudi Arabia and possibly having to travel to Saudi Arabia and other countries so realistically the package should have been £120.000 as a USA Quality Assurance Manager would be on £200.000 a year so I will present the Court two frameworks the £55000 annual salary and the realistic £120.000 annual salary 14 Ukraine alone would commission to you in excess of 1000 de mining vehicles each costing between 2 and 10 million 15 ACAS will approach you and ask you if you want free no cost mediation conciliation and if you reject their offer we close ACAS and I issue proceedings in Court which realistically will cost you £100.000 to defend 16 I intend to describe to the Court how you deceived me tricked me belittled me mocked and ridiculed me and how you flooded the floor with unqualified candidates so we would all fail 17 I am ex Rolls Royce and the highest qualified in the UK in ISO 9001 2015 and the highest qualified in the UK in automotive IATF 16949 2016 meaning I operate on International Accredited Certified standards and you have NO right to pull out a bag of tricks so no candidate can make it to the finish line and force him to fail 18 And rest assured that I will describe in Court to granular detail to the Judge how I was made to suffer for over three months to try and see a deserved job offer including the wise cracks during my Teams Interview 19 As for Kate Lawlor she will not escape a substantial costs order on her not the company for her abhorrent and shameful behaviour 20 I have re applied for the Quality Assurance Manager role which you advertise in current opportunities and would want £120.000 salary as the role is USA and Saudia Arabia if not Ukraine based 21 The Quality Assurance also involves 21.1 Spare parts 21 2 Maintenance and Assistance 21.3 Training and Education 21.4 Continuous Improvement 21.5 Passing the annual surveillance and re Certification Audits 22 I attach again my BSI Lead Auditor Certificate in case Kate Lawlor made sure the CEO would never set eyes on such certificate and be aware of the level of my application 23 You have until 31/03 to advise me if you wish to discuss the problem or go before the Judge because I am sick and tired with the excuses that are invented by you not to make me a job offer in particular Kate Lawlors tactics of manipulation

[55]Thereafter and throughout the time since his unsuccessful interview, the Claimant has continued to correspond with the Respondent and it employees (sending over 1,200 emails) not merely alleging age discrimination but also wrongdoing of various other kinds, threatening legal proceedings and warning of dire financial or personal consequences. David St John-Claire the Respondent's CEO has become the Claimant's particular target, notwithstanding he was not present at the Claimant's interview and had no involvement in his scoring. Law Direct Discrimination

Law

[56]In the employment field and so far as material, section 39 of the Equality Act 2010 (“EqA”) provides: (2) An employer(a) (A) must not discriminate against an employee of A's

(b) (B) - (a) as to B's terms of employment; (b) in the way A affords B access, or by not affording B access, to opportunities for promotion, transfer or training or for receiving any other benefit, facility or service;

(d) by subjecting B to any other detriment.

[57]As to the meaning of any other detriment, the employee must establish that by reason of the act or acts complained of a reasonable worker might take the view that they had thereby been disadvantaged in the circumstances in which they had thereafter to work. An unjustified sense of grievance cannot amount to a detriment for these purposes; see Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary

[2003] IRLR 285

HL.

[58]EqA section 13(1) provides: (1) A person (A) discriminates against another (B) if, because of a protected characteristic, A treats B less favourably than A treats or would treat others.

[59]The Tribunal must consider whether:59.1 the claimant received less favourable treatment;

59.2 if so, whether that was because of a protected characteristic.

[60]The question of whether there was less favourable treatment is answered by comparing the way in which the claimant was treated with the way in which others have been treated, or would have been treated. This exercise may involve looking at the treatment of a real comparator, or how a hypothetical comparator is likely to have been treated. In making this comparison we must be sure to compare like with like and particular to apply EqA section 23(1), which provides: (1) On a comparison of cases for the purposes of section 13, 14 or 19 there must be no material difference between the circumstances relating to each case.

[61]Evidence of the treatment of an actual comparator who is not close enough to satisfy the statutory definition may nonetheless by of assistance since it may help to inform a finding of how a hypothetical comparator would have been treated.

[62]As to whether any less favourable treatment was because of the claimant’s protected characteristic:62.1 direct evidence of discrimination is rare and it will frequently be necessary for employment tribunals to draw inferences from the primary facts;

62.2 if we are satisfied that the claimant’s protected characteristic was one of the reasons for the treatment complained of, it will be sufficient if that reason had a significant influence on the outcome, it need not be the sole or principal reason;

[63]In the absence of a real comparator and as an alternative to constructing a hypothetical comparator, in an appropriate case is may be sufficient to answer the “reason why” question - why did the claimant receive the treatment complained of.

[64]The burden of proof is addressed in EqA section 136, which so far as material provides: (2) If there are facts from which the court could decide, in the absence of any other explanation, that a person (A) contravened the provision concerned, the court must hold that the contravention occurred. (3) But subsection (2) does not apply if A shows that A did not contravene the provision occurred.

[65]When considering whether the claimant has satisfied the initial burden of proving facts from which a Tribunal might find discrimination, the Tribunal must consider the entirety of the evidence, whether adduced by the claimant or respondent; see Laing v Manchester City Council

[2006] IRLR 748

EAT.

[66]Furthermore, a simple difference in treatment as between the claimant and his comparators and a difference in protected characteristic will not suffice to shift the burden; see Madarassy v Nomura

[2007] IRLR 246

CA.

[67]The burden of proof provisions will add little in a case where the ET can make clear findings of a fact as to why an act or omission was done or not; see Martin v Devonshires Solicitors

[2011] IRLR 352

EAT, per Underhill P: 39. This submission betrays a misconception which has become all too common about the role of the burden of proof provisions in discrimination cases. Those provisions are important in circumstances where there is room for doubt as to the facts necessary to establish discrimination generally, that is, facts about the respondent’s motivation (in the sense defined above) because of the notorious difficulty of knowing what goes on inside someone else’s head “the devil himself knoweth not the mind of man” (per Brian CJ, YB 17 Ed IV f.1, pl. 2). But they have no bearing where the tribunal is in a position to make positive findings on the evidence one way or the other, and still less where there is no real dispute about the respondent’s motivation and what is in issue is its correct characterisation in law […] Harassment

[68]Insofar as material, EqA section 26 provides: (1) A person (A) harasses another (B) if— (a) A engages in unwanted conduct related to a relevant protected characteristic, and (b) the conduct has the purpose or effect of— (i)violating B's dignity, or (ii)creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for B. […] (4) In deciding whether conduct has the effect referred to in subsection (1)(b), each of the following must be taken into account— (a)the perception of B; (b)the other circumstances of the case; (c)whether it is reasonable for the conduct to have that effect.

[69]Whilst the unwanted conduct need not be done ‘on the grounds of’ or ‘because of”, in the sense of being causally linked to, a protected characteristic in order to amount to harassment, the need for that conduct be ‘related to’ the protected characteristic does require a “connection or association” with that; see Regina (Equal Opportunities Commission) v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry

[2007] ICR 1234

QBD. Notwithstanding it was decided under the prior legislation including the formulation “on the grounds of”, the observations made by by the EAT in Nazir v Asim

[2010] ICR 1225

may still be of some relevance: 69 We wish to emphasise this last question. The provisions to which we have referred find their place in legislation concerned with equality. It is not the purpose of such legislation to address all forms of bullying or anti-social behaviour in the workplace. The legislation therefore does not prohibit all harassment, still less every argument or dispute in the workplace; it is concerned only with harassment which is related to a characteristic protected by equality law—such as a person’s race and gender.

[70]In relation to the proscribed effect, although the Claimant’s perception must be taken into account, the test is not a subjective one satisfied merely because the Claimant thinks it is. The Tribunal must reach a conclusion that the found conduct reasonably brought about the effect; see Richmond Pharmacology v Dhaliwal

[2009] IRLR 336

EAT.

[71]Guidance on the threshold for conduct satisfying the statutory definition was given by the EAT in Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board v Hughes [2014] 2 WLUK 991; per Langstaff P:10. Next, it was pointed out by Elias LJ in the case of Grant v HM Land Registry

[2011] EWCA Civ 769

that the words “violating dignity”, “intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating, offensive” are significant words. As he said: “Tribunals must not cheapen the significance of these words. They are an important control to prevent trivial acts causing minor upsets being caught by the concept of harassment.”

11. Exactly the same point was made by Underhill P in Richmond Pharmacology at paragraph 22: “..not every racially slanted adverse comment or conduct may constitute the violation of a person's dignity. Dignity is not necessarily violated by things said or done which are trivial or transitory, particularly if it should have been clear that any offence was unintended. While it is very important that employers, and tribunals, are sensitive to the hurt that can be caused by racially offensive comments or conduct (or indeed comments or conduct on other grounds covered by the cognate legislation to which we have referred), it is also important not to encourage a culture of hypersensitivity or the imposition of legal liability in respect of every unfortunate phrase.”

12. We wholeheartedly agree. The word “violating” is a strong word. Offending against dignity, hurting it, is insufficient. “Violating” may be a word the strength of which is sometimes overlooked. The same might be said of the words “intimidating” etc. All look for effects which are serious and marked, and not those which are, though real, truly of lesser consequence. Conclusion Direct Discrimination

[72]The alleged less favourable treatment occurred, namely following an initial interview on 7 February 2023, the Respondent decided not to progress the Claimant's application for employment. The question then is whether this was because of age.

[73]There are no facts from which we could, in the absence of an explanation, find that the Respondent decided not to invite the Claimant to a second interview because of his age. Whilst the Claimant had a relevant ISO 9001 audit qualification, so did other applicants. From an initial pool of more than 20, the Claimant was one of 8 who were invited to an initial interview by Teams. Thereafter, the Claimant made unnecessary contact with the Respondent before performing poorly at interview. When answering questions, he did not face his camera. The Claimant repeatedly told the panel he would obtain an accreditation for the Respondent, which it already held. The Claimant could easily have discovered this existing accreditation for himself by looking at the Company website. His answers suggested he was closed-minded to alternative working methods. The panel scored him as a 2.

[74]Mr Sowden would be the correct comparator for the Claimant's complaint. He did not do the things the Claimant had at interview. He gave relevant answers to questions that tended to evidence the matters set out in the Respondent's job description. He was scored a 5. He was invited to a second interview and subsequently offered the job.

[75]There are no facts that would allow for a finding that the Claimant's lack of progression in this selection process was to any extent whatsoever because of age. Accordingly, the burden does not shift.

[76]Further and separately, we accepted the Respondent's non-discriminatory explanation. The Claimant created a very poor impression on the panel at interview. His presentational style was unengaging. He was determined to talk about obtaining ISO 9001 accreditation despite this not being sought from the successful candidate. His heavy focus on that particular point demonstrated a lack of basic research on the company website and in returning to the same point after having been told of the Respondent's accreditation, the Claimant showed himself unable to listen or take on board what he was being told. The panel felt the answers given did not demonstrate the Claimant was a team player. Mr Sowden on the other hand, performed very well at interview. He had an engaging approach, looking directly at his camera and, therefore, the panel. He gave relevant examples and persuasive answers. None of this had anything whatsoever to do with age.

[77]Accordingly, the Claimant's claims of direct age discrimination are not wellfounded and are dismissed. Harassment

[78]The alleged harassment did not occur. This is a fabrication on the Claimant's part.

[79]Accordingly, the Claimant's claims of harassment related to age are not wellfounded and are dismissed. Claims Dismissed

[80]The Claimant's claims are dismissed in their entirety, they were totally without merit. EJ Maxwell 18 September 2024

Conclusion

[1]The Respondent applied for costs by way of its letter of 8 October 2024. This referred to and relied upon various documents in the two bundles the Respondent had provided for the final hearing, including a schedule of the fees charged by its former Solicitor (RWK Goodman) and Counsel (Mr Kendall). Attached to the application was a supplementary schedule detailing the fees charged by its lay representative at the final hearing (Croner). The Respondent also prepared a separate (third) bundle of documents for the costs hearing.

[2]The Claimant responded to that application in a series of emails. Indeed, these began even before the Respondent’s written application was received. The Claimant argued there were no grounds for a costs order. He said that EJ Childe had dismissed the Respondent’s strike out application and, therefore, his claims had been reasonable. The Claimant made reference to his appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal against the finding of this Tribunal on liability and also a complaint he has made about the Judge to the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office. The Claimant complained that the Respondent’s application was late and that he had received a digital rather than paper copy of the third document bundle.

[3]With respect to the newest hearing bundle, the case management order the Judge had made required: the Claimant to complete the form EX140 with respect to his means and attach any documents he relied upon to show his means; the Respondent to prepare a bundle for the costs hearing including all that the Claimant had provided in this regard; a copy of that bundle to be sent to the Claimant. The order did not include a requirement to provide a paper copy of the hearing bundle to the Claimant. Nonetheless, in response to the Claimant's correspondence, the Respondent sent him a paper copy and the Claimant’s email of 29 January 2025 confirmed that he had received this.

[4]The Respondent’s most recent representative, Croner, came off the record on 10 January 2025.

[5]On the morning of the hearing, at 7:42 am, the Respondent sent an email to the Tribunal saying: Unfortunately the Respondent in this matter, Mr St John-Claire, has been admitted to hospital due to complications relating to his ongoing treatment for cancer and will therefore not be able to participate in todays scheduled Costs Hearing. Mr St John-Claire sends his apologies to the court for any inconvenience.

[6]The Respondent did not apply for a postponement of the hearing and we decided it was in the interests of justice to proceed in its absence. The Claimant was in attendance to give evidence and make representations on his own behalf. The Respondent’s position had been set out in writing.

[7]The Claimant gave evidence about his means. He also made submissions in connection with the Respondent’s costs application. The points he made orally were in keeping with his written representations. Law Rule 74

[8]The making of costs or preparation time orders are governed by rule 74, which provides in so far as material: 74.—(1) The Tribunal may make a costs order or a preparation time order (as appropriate) on its own initiative or on the application of a party or, in respect of a costs order under rule 73(1)(b), a witness who has attended or has been ordered to attend to give oral evidence at a hearing. (2) The Tribunal must consider making a costs order or a preparation time order where it considers that—(a) a party (or that party’s representative) has acted vexatiously, abusively, disruptively or otherwise unreasonably in either the bringing of the proceedings, or part of it, or the way that the proceedings, or part of it, have been conducted,

(b) any claim, response or reply had no reasonable prospect of success, […] (3) The Tribunal may also make a costs order or a preparation time order (as appropriate) on the application of a party where a party has been in breach of any order, rule or practice direction or where a hearing has been postponed or adjourned. Duty to Consider Costs

[9]Rule 74(2) provides the Tribunal shall consider making a costs or preparation time order where one of more of the threshold criteria is satisfied. Whether or not to make such an order is, however, discretionary. Structured Approach

[10]A three-stage approach must be followed before an order is made under rule 74:10.1 Firstly, the Tribunal must be satisfied one of more of the threshold criteria have been satisfied;

10.2 Secondly, the Tribunal must consider whether it is appropriate to make an order in the particular case before it;

10.3 Thirdly, the Tribunal must determine the amount of such an award.

[11]There will often be a substantial overlap between the factors going to the first question, whether the threshold is satisfied and the second question, the appropriateness of an award in the case at hand. Litigants in Person

[12]As a general point, a litigant in person may be afforded more latitude than a legally represented party; see AQ Ltd v Holden [2012]

UKEAT/0021/12/CEA

, per HHJ Richardson: 32. The threshold tests in [the predecessor to Rule 76] are the same whether a litigant is or is not professionally represented. The application of those tests may, however, must take into account whether a litigant is professionally represented. A tribunal cannot and should not judge a litigant in person by the standards of a professional representative. Lay people are entitled to represent themselves in tribunals; and, since legal aid is not available and they will not usually recover costs if they are successful, it is inevitable that many lay people will represent themselves. Justice requires that tribunals do not apply professional standards to lay people, who may be involved in legal proceedings for the only time in their life. As Mr Davies submitted, lay people are likely to lack the objectivity and knowledge of law and practice brought by a professional legal adviser. Tribunals must bear this in mind when assessing the threshold tests in rule 40(3) . Further, even if the threshold tests for an order for costs are met, the Tribunal has discretion whether to make an order. This discretion will be exercised having regard to all the circumstances. It is not irrelevant that a lay person may have brought proceedings with little or no access to specialist help and advice. Unreasonable Conduct

[13]The word unreasonably should be given its ordinary English meaning; see Dyer v Secretary of State for Employment [1983] UKEAT 183/83, per Browne Wilkinson J: Further, it is now very well established by Court of Appeal authority, and again we would have thought it was very widely known, that the question whether or not conduct is reasonable is not a question of law: it is a question of fact. In the present case the whole appeal turns on whether, within the meaning of the costs rule, the conduct of the Secretary of State can be categorised as being "otherwise unreasonably bringing or conducting the proceedings". On the face of it, that is a question of fact on which an appeal cannot succeed unless it is shown either that the industrial tribunal, in reaching its conclusion of fact, misdirected itself on a relevant point of law, or based itself on findings for which there was no evidence or reached a conclusion which, in a legal sense, is perverse, ie, a conclusion which no reasonable tribunal, properly directing itself, could have reached. Those are the only possible points of law in this case.

[14]Examples (and they are no more than that) of unreasonable conduct may include:14.1 giving false evidence (Arrowsmith v Nottingham Trent University

2012 ICR 159

CA and Ghosh v Nokia Siemens Networks UK Ltd EAT [2012] 0125/12);

14.2 being overly legalistic or technical (Godfrey Morgan Solicitors Ltd v Marzan EAT 0465/11). Reasonable Prospects

[15]Whether a claim or response had no reasonable prospect of success will often overlap with the question of whether pursuit of the same involved a party acting unreasonably. This point was addressed by the EAT Opalkova v Acquire Care Ltd [2021]

UKEAT/0056/21

per HHJ Tayler:

[22]Determining that a response did not have a reasonable prospect of success or that a respondent acted unreasonably in defending the claim and/or in maintaining the defence is a threshold that results in the tribunal having a discretion to make a cost or preparation time order. As HHJ Auerbach noted in Radia v Jefferies International

[2020] IRLR 431

: “61. It is well-established that the first question for a Tribunal considering a costs application is whether the costs threshold is crossed, in the sense that at least one of r 76(1)(a) or (b) is made out. If so, it does not automatically follow that a costs order will be made. Rather, this means that the Tribunal may make a costs order, and shall consider whether to do so. That is the second stage, and it involves the exercise by the Tribunal of a judicial discretion. If it decides in principle to make a costs order, the Tribunal must consider the amount in accordance with r 78. …” [Original emphasis]

[23]HHJ Auerbach considered the overlap between a claim or response having no reasonable prospect of success and unreasonable conduct: “64. This means that, in practice, where costs are sought both through the r 76(1)(a) and the r 76(1)(b) route, and the conduct said to be unreasonable under (a) is the bringing, or continuation, of claims which had no reasonable prospect of success, the key issues for overall consideration by the Tribunal will, in either case, likely be the same (though there may be other considerations, of course, in particular at the second stage). Did the complaints, in fact, have no reasonable prospect of success? If so, did the complainant in fact know or appreciate that? If not, ought they, reasonably, to have known or appreciated that?”

[24]Accordingly, there are three key questions. First, objectively analysed when the response was submitted did it have no reasonable prospects of success; or alternatively at some later stage as more evidence became available was a stage reached at which the response ceased to have reasonable prospects of success? Second, at the stage that the response had no reasonable prospects of success did the respondent know that was the case? Third, if not, should the respondent have known that the response had no reasonable prospect of success?

[25]These questions are relevant whether the matter is analysed on the basis that the response had no reasonable prospects of success or that the respondent was guilty of unreasonable conduct in defending or maintaining the defence to the claims. The relevance of the questions differ between these two grounds for making a preparation time order. The question of whether a response had reasonable prospects of success is objective and is the threshold for making a preparation time order under Rule 76(1)(b) ET Rules, even if the respondent was not aware, and should not reasonably have been aware, that the response had no reasonable prospect of success. However, the lack of understanding of the merits of the response would be relevant, along with other matters, to the discretionary question of whether a preparation time order should be made. The questions of whether the respondent knew that the response had no reasonable prospects of success, or should reasonably have known, are relevant to the threshold question for a preparation time order on the basis that defending, or maintaining the defence, to the claim was unreasonable conduct for the purposes of Rule 76(1)(a) ET Rules; after which the discretion to make a preparation time order has to be applied considering all relevant factors. Whichever of the two provisions is applied it is hard to see that the result will be different. However, the matter must be analysed properly.

[26]In considering whether the respondent should have known that a response had no reasonable prospects of success, a respondent is likely to be assessed more rigorously if legally represented: see for example Brooks v Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust

UKEAT/0246/18/JOJ

, at paragraph 3. Discretion 16. Even where the threshold for an award of costs has been met, the Tribunal must sill consider whether in its discretion such an award is appropriate; see Barnsley MBC v Yerrakalva

[2011] EWCA Civ 1255

, per Mummery LJ: 41. The vital point in exercising the discretion to order costs is to look at the whole picture of what happened in the case and to ask whether there has been unreasonable conduct by the claimant in bringing and conducting the case and, in doing so, to identify the conduct, what was unreasonable about it and what effects it had. The main thrust of the passages cited above from my judgment in Mc Pherson was to reject as erroneous the submission to the court that, in deciding whether to make a costs order, the ET had to determine whether or not there was a precise causal link between the unreasonable conduct in question and the specific costs being claimed. In rejecting that submission I had no intention of giving birth to erroneous notions, such as that causation was irrelevant or that the circumstances had to be separated into sections and each section to be analysed separately so as to lose sight of the totality of the relevant circumstances.17. A potentially relevant factor in connection with the exercise of this discretion may be whether, when and if so in what terms the other party sent a costs warning letter. This point was considered, in passing, by the EAT in Vaughan v LB Lewisham

UKEAT/0533/12/SM

, per Underhill P:

18. We do not believe that as a matter of law an award of costs can only be made where the party in question has been put on notice, by the making of a deposit order or otherwise, that he or she is at risk as to costs. Nor, however, do we believe that the absence of such notice, or warning, is necessarily irrelevant: indeed it was expressly relied on in a recent decision of Mr Recorder Luba QC as one of the reasons for not exercising a discretion to award costs under the cognate jurisdiction in this Tribunal – see Rogers v Dorothy Barley School (

UKEAT/0013/12

), at para. 9. What, if any, weight it should be given in any particular case must be judged in the circumstances of that case; and it is, as we have already observed, regrettable that the Tribunal does not expressly address the question.

19. In our view the fact that the Appellant had not been put on notice was not in the present case a sufficient reason for withholding an order for costs which was otherwise justified. In the first place, we do not believe that it would be just to deprive the Respondents of an award of costs because they had not sought a deposit order: there may, as discussed above, be good reasons why a party may prefer not to take that course. If there is any criticism, it could only be that they did not write to her at an early stage setting out the weaknesses in her claims and warning that a costs order would be sought if they failed. But what is significant is that the Appellant at no stage in her submissions to the Tribunal or before us asserts that if she had been given such a warning she would have discontinued her claim; and nor in any event does it seem to us that any such assertion would have been credible. She was, as the Tribunal emphasises, convinced, albeit without any rational or evidential basis, that she was the victim of a conspiracy and of a serious injustice, and it seems to us highly unlikely that a letter from the Respondents, however well-crafted, would have caused the scales to fall from her eyes. Amount 18. Costs are intended to be compensatory rather than punitive. The starting point will, therefore, be the loss suffered by the receiving party. Costs will be limited to those which were reasonably and necessarily incurred. A precise link between the unreasonable conduct (or other matter allowing for such an order) and costs incurred is, however, not required; per D'Silva v NATFHE

[2009] UKEAT 0126/09

, per Bean J: 24. The principle set out in McPherson v BNP Paribas, to which we have already referred, is that it is not necessary to establish a direct causal link between particular examples of unreasonable conduct and the costs incurred by the Respondent. Once a finding of unreasonable conduct or misconceived bringing of proceedings or another ground under Rule 14 is made, the question of costs is then very much within the discretion of the Tribunal. 19. Whilst the Tribunal is not required to take into account the means of the paying party, if it decides not to it should provide reasons for this. The ability of a party to pay will be affected not only by their income but also their assets; see Shields Automotive Ltd v Greig

[2010] UKEAT 0024/10

. 20. An immediate inability to discharge a costs order need not bar the making of one in an appropriate case. Furthermore, enforcement of the same will require an application to the County Court and the Judge on hearing that will be able to take into account the party’s current position; see Vaughan, per Underhill J:

[28]The starting-point is that even though the Tribunal thought it right to “have regard to” the Appellant’s means that did not require it to make a firm finding as to the maximum that it believed she could pay, either forthwith or within some specified timescale, and to limit the award to that amount. That is not what the rule says (and it would be particularly surprising if it were the case, given that there is no absolute obligation to have regard to means at all). If there was a realistic prospect that the Appellant might at some point in the future be able to afford to pay a substantial amount it was legitimate to make a costs order in that amount so that the Respondents would be able to make some recovery when and if that occurred. That seems to us right in principle: there is no reason why the question of affordability has to be decided once and for all by reference to the party’s means as at the moment the order falls to be made. And it is in any event the basis on which the Court of Appeal proceeded in Arrowsmith, albeit that the relevant reasoning is extremely shortly expressed. It is necessary to remember that whatever order was made would have to be enforced through the County Court, which would itself take into account the Appellant’s means from time to time in deciding whether to require payment by instalments, and if so in what amount. Method 21. The Tribunal can order unassessed costs of up to £20,000 or order a detailed assessment for a sum above that. 22. In awarding unassessed costs, the Tribunal must, however, set out its reasoning in sufficient detail and a failure to do so will be an error of law; see Mr S Ayoola v St Christopher's Fellowship [2013]

UKEAT/0508/13/BA

per HHJ Eady: 51. Although no particular procedure is laid down in the Tribunal Rules for a summary assessment of costs, the discretion as to the amount of an award must still be exercised judicially. One can take it a bit further. Although not bound by the same rules as the civil courts and although the discretion under the 2004 Tribunal Rules is very broad, the costs awarded should not breach the indemnity principle and must compensate and not penalise; there must, further, be some indication that the Tribunal has adopted an approach which enables it to explain how the amount is calculated for the purpose of Rule 30(6)(f). Conclusion Threshold 23. We are satisfied the Claimant behaved unreasonably in bringing the proceedings and that his claims had no reasonable prospect of success. With respect to direct discrimination, there was no evidence whatsoever of any link between the Claimant’s age and his failure to secure the role he applied for with the Respondent, save for his account of the conduct and things said to him by the Respondent during the job interview. We found the Claimant’s evidence in this regard to be a fabrication. As far as the harassment claim was concerned, this was based solely on that fabricated evidence. EJ Childe’s decision on the Respondent’s strikeout application is no answer to the merits point, as he was required to consider the Claimant’s case at its highest and, therefore, on the basis the Tribunal at final hearing would accept the account the Claimant put forward was true. Rule 74(2)(b) is satisfied because, objectively, there was no evidence to substantiate the Claimant's claims. Furthermore, the Claimant knew or ought reasonably to have known that his claim was based on a falsehood and there was no other evidence making the link or tending to show the things he alleged. Rule 74(2)(a) is, therefore, also satisfied because the Claimant pursued claims in circumstances where he knew or ought to have known they had no reasonable prospect. 24. The Claimant also behaved abusively, disruptively and unreasonably in the manner in which he conducted this litigation. The Claimant bombarded the Respondent with an excessive volume of correspondence. Having looked at the Respondent’s cost schedule and the breakdown which sits behind this, it is apparent that the Respondent incurred substantial legal costs as a result of the time spent by RWK Goodman in considering this extensive email traffic. Indeed it is unsurprising, given these mounting fees, that the Respondent opted to be self-represented for periods during this litigation. The Claimant was often sending multiple emails on a daily basis, totalling in excess of 1,200. Whilst the Claimant complains about the number of emails he received from the Respondent, it is clear that these were for the most part in response to him. He could not, reasonably, write to the Respondent and expect no reply. The excessive burden the Claimant created was both unreasonable and disruptive. Furthermore, by reason of the tone and content of these emails, the Claimant’s conduct was not merely unreasonable and disruptive but also, at times, abusive. We note his vast correspondence included:24.1 making unsubstantiated allegations and threats against individuals within the Respondent: 13 March 2023 11 Kate Lawlor will see on her a substantial costs order for having acted unreasonably by manipulating agencies and candidates so there was not a stable platform to make a decision on who to make the job offer to […] 19 As for Kate Lawlor she will not escape a substantial costs order on her not the company for her abhorrent and shameful behaviour

24.2 constant demands for settlement: 19 May 2024 Re Consideration on a harsh punishment on Respondents playing the long game and keeping their cheque book in their pockets refusing to settle. […] 2 Despite having money the Respondents decided to play the long game refusing any discussion of the Claim with the Claimant in contravention of Presidential Guidance. 3 The situation is a Respondent that refused to settle a claim and wants to wait out for the final Judgment and keep his cheque book in his pocket. 4 As such one year and nine months have now gone by - the Respondent has refused to discuss to settle and the Claimant has to wait. 5 The Claimant has now around 5 respondents playing the long game keep their cheque books in their pockets.

24.3 unsubstantiated allegations against the Respondent’s solicitor: 24 May 2023 3 From January 2023 to this day May 2023 the Respondent has painted the Claimant to the Tribunal as a " nobody " and has used a frivolous excuse invented in Ms Remys kitchen that the Claimant was refused a job because he failed to impress on team building 4 This team building excuse and justification was used by Ms Remy to fatten her own coffers and pockets whilst keeping the Tribunal at bay - as legal representative she charges her clients costs which she hopes to recover 2 October 2023 1 We are advised RWK has sacked and dismissed Ms Remy O 2 Miss Remy O forced Aardvark to pay billings of hundreds of thousands of pounds when the case could have been settled for a insignificant sum 3 We have no doubt that your CEO was informed of the settlement proposals 4 In any event we have informed the Judge that Ms Remy O was sacked fired dismissed 5 The correct manner for Aardvark to move forward is making a out of court settlement offer and stop paying tens of thousands of pounds to RWK 3 October 2023 Ms Remy Omesher told us that he CEO had given her instructions not to settle We believe that was lie we were told as Ms Remy Ormesher intended to force the litigation as they bill Aardvark invoices And if there was a settlement RWK would be deprived on the cash cow revenue proceeds coming in We also beieve she was sacked fired and terminated by wrath of your CEO at the way she was handling the case Under rule 77. 1 if your CEO acts unreasonably he can be made a costs order in 28 days and your CEO has been rejecting offers to settle starting at £1

24.4 Using inflammatory, aggressive or threatening language: 10 August 2024 4 The Respondent is escaping scrutiny in the e mails he sent me with threats, terrorisation and intimidation of me as witness 5 The rule of law on threats intimidation and terrorisation is strike out plain and simple and I do not see why I have to go to full and final hearing when I have a right to strike out now and win the Claim […] 13 This employer used abusive and threatening e mails since 29/02 to escape payout and as Claimant I WILL NOT attend a final hearing with the Respondent unless a Rule 37.1 Strike Out precedes. 14 The Tribunal is denying my right to crush the Respondent to oblivion for improper acts on their behalf making us wonder who is running the employment tribunal in the UK and why are the Respondents always defended unfairly against the Claimants ? 23 August 2024 You will not be given the opportunity to talk back and the Judge will have before him the 150 rude and offensive e mails you sent me Then at the end I will file for rule 77.1 for wasted costs you having acted unreasonably So it was your doing and your total incapacity to shut up and your sickening frugality as you will not spend a penny as you say so yourself Once your ET3 and deference has been struck out we go to remedies and that is the full £108.000 and you are going to see those figures carved in your forehead for the manner you conducted yourself and the things you said about me 25. As noted in our decision on liability, the Claimant also used the term “lawyer” in a misleading way, intending that others would believe him to be a legally qualified professional and thereby adding weight to his threats. 26. For these reasons, the test in section 74(2)(a) is also satisfied by the manner in which the Claimant conducted this litigation. 27. The Claimant’s unreasonable approach to correspondence was identified by EJ Kenward, who made an order on 6 October 2023: "In the circumstances, I ordered that Claimant shall immediately desist from using inflammatory or abusive comments in correspondence with the Respondent's Solicitors, shall correspond respectfully and politely with the Respondent's Solicitors and shall restrict the volume of e-mails he sends to those reasonably required to progress the litigation." 28. The Claimant made no adjustment to his approach and the ongoing torrent of correspondence was in breach of this order. As such, the test in rule 74(3) is also satisfied. Discretion

[29]We next consider our discretion. The magnitude of the Claimant’s default is considerable. He pursued claims he knew or ought to have known had no reasonable prospect of success. He gave false evidence with respect to the central allegations in the case. He failed to heed the costs warning letter sent by the Respondent explaining why his claims lacked merit. Despite his repeated argument in correspondence and at this hearing, we do not accept the Claimant could take any comfort from the Respondent's lack of success in its strike out application. Given a factual dispute as to what was said and done at the material interview, the Judge on that occasion was obliged to consider the matter on the basis of the Claimant's account being true, whereas it was false. The Claimant wrote to the Respondent in a wholly unacceptable way, both in terms of volume and content, demanding monies, making threats and using aggressive or inflammatory language. He persisted in this latter course, despite being ordered to stop. The Respondent has incurred substantial costs as a result of these matters. This is an appropriate case for an award of costs. Amount

[30]We scrutinised the costs claimed with respect to the Respondent’s former solicitors and counsel. The amounts appeared to be reasonable. Two fee earners at the firm did the work. The hourly rates (we calculated this by dividing the sum claimed by the time taken) were £265 and £175, which are entirely unremarkable. The work done is particularised fully. As we have already noted, much of this was undertaken in responding to the Claimant’s emails. The amounts claimed with respect to Counsel’s fees for drafting the grounds of resistance and representing the Respondent on its strike out application appear reasonable. The total sum claimed in that regard is £22,438.02. As far as the Respondent’s lay representative is concerned, £1,658.45 is claimed for preparation and representation at the final hearing. Once again, the time spent has been particularised and the claim is made at the appropriate hourly rate, currently £44 per hour. We are satisfied the sums claimed are entirely reasonable and reflected costs incurred as a result of the Claimant’s conduct.

[31]Although the Respondent also claimed the cost of witness attendance, the costs claimed already exceed the £20,000 cap on unassessed costs we have jurisdiction to award and the Respondent had not applied for a detailed assessment.

[32]Before making a final decision, we go on to consider the Claimant’s means. Unfortunately, we did not find the Claimant’s evidence in this regard be credible. A case management order had been made, requiring the Claimant to complete the form EX140 and provide documentary evidence in support, with respect to his means. Whilst the Claimant filled in the form, signing the declaration of truth, he did not provide any documents.

[33]The Claimant gave evidence under oath and was asked questions by the Tribunal. He said that if we made any order for costs he would lose his home, which is rented from a housing association, and become homeless. He confirmed the figures in his EX140 were true and said he could afford to pay no costs.

[34]The Claimant and said his only source of income was pension credit in sum of £197 per week, as he did not qualify for a state pension. On the form, the Claimant said he had savings of £21,000. Today the Claimant said the balance stood at £19,000, as a result of the expense of repairing the power steering on his car.

[35]The Claimant said he was paying £2,300 council tax per annum. When asked whether he received any financial assistance with his council tax, the Claimant said he did not and his application for this had been refused. We were somewhat surprised by this, given that if he were eligible for pension credit he should also receive help with his council tax. A similar point arose in connection with his rent. The Claimant denied being in receipt of housing benefit, yet he should be eligible for that if he is receiving pension credit.

[36]Later in the form, the Claimant wrote that he paid £500 per month on council tax. This was somewhat puzzling, as that would equate to £6,000 per annum, which seemed rather high and furthermore, the Claimant had previously given an annual figure for this of £2,300. The Claimant was asked to explain the apparent discrepancy. After some to-ing and fro-ing with the paper documents the Claimant had and the question being repeated, the Claimant said this figure included arrears. We noted, however, the Claimant had separately declared £300 per month being paid with respect to council tax arrears and at best, this appeared to involve double counting.

[37]We were also surprised by the amount the Claimant said he paid monthly for gas and electricity, totalling £500. Given the Claimant lives in a one-bedroom bungalow, an annual energy bill of £6,000 was surprisingly high. We noted the Claimant had, separately, recorded a total of £1,400 a month being paid for arrears with respect to gas and electricity. This did not seem to fit with the approach the Claimant had previously taken of including arrears within the monthly amount as well. We also noted the arrears he said he was paying for energy alone would considerably exceed his monthly income of circa £800.

[38]The Claimant was asked about the £240 per month travelling expenses. He said this was for petrol. Given he was unemployed and has been so for a considerable period of time he was asked to explain this usage. The Claimant said he drove to attend job interviews.

[39]The Claimant declared a County Court judgement in the sum of £13,000 he has been ordered to pay in favour of Muck LLP, a law firm, for its costs. He said he was paying £1,000 per month to discharge this and balance stood at £8000.

[40]The Claimant’s figures simply did not add up. His monthly income was given as circa £800. Yet his stated monthly outgoings totalled £4,350. He completed the EX140 on 10 November 2024. The hearing took place on 5 February 2024, nearly 3 months later. Yet his bank balance was said to have dropped by only £2,000, which he attributed to an expensive car repair.

[41]Save for the existence of a County Court judgement in the amount declared, we otherwise found the Claimant’s evidence of his means to be unsatisfactory and unreliable.

[42]Having no reliable information about his means, we have not been able to take this into account in connection with setting the amount of costs. We do, however, remind ourselves that in the course of any enforcement proceedings in the County Court, the Claimant will have a further opportunity to provide evidence of his means and ability to pay.

[43]The Claimant will pay the Respondent’s costs in the sum of £20,000. Approved by: EJ Maxwell Date: 17 February 2025

Conclusion

[1]In advance of the hearing of the Claimant's reconsideration application listed on 19 September 2025, Mr St John Claire prepared a bundle of documents and sent a copy to the Claimant. This included additional invoices issued by RWK Goodman and a covering email from the solicitor confirming they had all been paid. We also had access to the bundles used at previous hearings and the digital case file, which then ran to circa 1,600 pages as a result of much repetitive correspondence from the Claimant.

[2]On the day of the hearing, however, it became apparent the Company was then in administration. The Administrator not having provided an appropriate consent, it was necessary to stay the proceedings. Shortly, thereafter such consent was forthcoming and the Claimant's application relisted for today.

[3]More recently, the Administrator wrote to the Tribunal on 22 October 2025 in the following terms: I email to advise that the Administration will come to an end on 23 October 2025, at which time the Administrators will file a notice at Companies House advising that they cease to act. The Company will move to dissolution three months thereafter. Therefore, there will be no further representation from the Company in this respect. No persons can act on behalf of the Company and we therefore consider this matter closed. I can also confirm that neither the Administrators, nor the Company will pursue to sums due from David Hughes in respect of the Award of Cost dated 5 February 2025.

[4]There was also an email from Mr St John Claire of 25 October 2025, saying that his email address would be switched off from 27 October 2025. He also said he understood the matter to now be closed. It is unclear whether joining details for the hearing today were sent to Mr St John Claire and if they were, it seems likely they were sent to an address at which they would not be received.

[5]Before the start of the hearing, the Judge checked on the Companies House website. The Respondent was still on the register and, therefore, there appeared to be no bar to the Claimant’s application continuing today.

[6]We heard from no witness and dealt with the matter on the basis of documentary evidence only.

[7]Whilst the Claimant had been given permission to pursue his reconsideration application with respect to quantum only, in light of the Administrator’s recently stated position and the prospect of there being no enforcement of the costs order made, the Judge invited submissions on this point also.

[8]In the course of making his representations, the Claimant argued that no costs order should have been made on 5 February 2025, because the Respondent was already administration as of that date.

[9]After hearing from the Claimant, the Judge checked on the Companies House website for details of the administration. From this we were able to establish the insolvency proceedings began as long ago as 24 October 2024.

Facts

[10]The Respondent instructed solicitors, RWK Goodman, to advise and defend the Company in connection with the Claimant's claim.

[11]We accept the invoices produced are genuine documents, reflecting the fees charged by the Respondent's solicitors, RWK Goodman.

[12]On 31 May 2023, RWK Goodman invoiced the Respondent for work done by two fee-earners between 31 March and 30 May 2023 at the rates of £265 and £175 per hour. Unsurprisingly given its volume, much time was engaged in addressing correspondence from the Claimant. The total for solicitors’ fees at that point was £10,682.35 net. The invoice also included a disbursement to Counsel (Mr Kendall) his fee for drafting the grounds of resistance and amending an application in the sum of £1,060 net.

[13]On 21 November 2023, RWK Goodman invoiced the Respondent for work done in advising on and drafting a costs warning letter of 15 November 2023, in the sum of £725 net.

[14]As a result of the mounting legal costs, the Respondent decided to dispense with the services of RWK Goodman in this matter.

[15]Mr St John Claire represented the company at the preliminary hearing on 29 February 2024. He relied upon a skeleton argument that was, quite clearly, professionally drafted.

[16]On 30 March 2024, RWK Goodman invoiced the Respondent for advice in connection with the Claimant's claim in the sum of £6,230 net. Whilst no detailed breakdown was provided, it is likely this included work done in preparation for the case management hearing on 6 October 2023, Counsel’s fee for attending the same, work done in preparation for (but not attending) the strike out hearing on 29 February 2024 and dealing with the Claimant's ongoing email correspondence more generally.

Background

[17]Prior to the final hearing, Croner, a lay representative, was instructed by the Respondent.

[18]We accepted, notwithstanding the absence of an invoice, the Respondent was charged a sum of £1,382.04 by its lay representative, Croner, for advice, preparation and representation at the final hearing. The costs application prepared by Croner and dated 8 October 2024 included a detailed schedule of the work done, time spent and fees charged, at the appropriate hourly rate, £44 net. Discounting the sums claimed for witness attendance, the costs totalled £1,382.04 net.

[19]The net fees charged to the Respondent by its legal and non-legal representatives were, therefore:19.1 £10,682.35 net;

19.2 £1,060 net;

19.3 £725 net;

19.4 £6,230 net;

19.5 £1,382.04 net;

19.6 Total = £20,079.39 net.

Conclusion

[20]As we noted previously, the rates charged by RWK Goodman are unremarkable. The work done appears to be entirely appropriate in responding to a claim such as the one made here. Unsurprisingly given its volume, much time was spent in addressing excessive and needless correspondence from the Claimant.

[21]The work done by Croner was proportionate to the demands of a multi-day discrimination claim such as this. As previously noted, £44 is the correct hourly rate for a lay representative.

[22]Although the Claimant did not take the point, at this reconsideration hearing the Tribunal came to the view that it would not be proper to reflect the VAT element in any award of costs, as the Respondent is a VAT registered entity and would, therefore, have been able to reclaim that element of the fees charged by its solicitor and lay representative.

[23]The Judge listed the reconsideration application for a hearing because in light of the Claimant’s representations on quantum and on further reflection, it appeared arguable the costs incurred by the Respondent were less than the amount he had been ordered to pay. In advance of the reconsideration hearing, Mr St John Claire provided further documentary evidence, which amounted to a complete set of the invoices from RWK Goodman. We accept the invoices are genuine. Even on a net only basis, the costs incurred by the Respondent exceeded those we had ordered to be paid. Having received that further documentary evidence and absent the Respondent’s insolvency proceedings, we would have no hesitation in dismissing the Claimant’s reconsideration application.

[24]The Claimant is, however, correct in his observation that no costs order should be made on 2 February 2025, because of the administration. Had the Tribunal been aware of this at the time, the proceedings would have been stayed and enquiries made of the Administrator. Furthermore, it is now apparent the Respondent has no intention of enforcing the costs order and indeed, by January 2026 it is likely there will be no legal party capable of enforcing the same. In these unusual circumstances, we have decided it is in the interests of justice to revoke the costs order entirely. For the avoidance of doubt, we have not accepted any of the Claimant’s representations to the effect that the Respondent did not incur the costs to which we have referred and / or that the invoices put forward are false and / or that the Respondent or its representatives behaved dishonestly. Approved by: EJ Maxwell Date: 7 November 2025