Employment Judge Liz OrdIn person for claimantNot attending for respondentDate 9 January 2026
JUDGMENT
[1]The respondent, Aqua Lane Limited, is ordered to pay the claimant the sum of £122,425.70 comprising the following: A basic award 12 full years’ service Age 45yrs at termination date on 18.4.2024 4 x 1.5 x 700 = 4,200 8 x 1 x 700 = 5,600 £9,800 A compensatory award Loss statutory rights Immediate lost earnings Future loss of earnings Accommodation losses due to eviction from tied pub flat Travel expenses to new job (no travel when lived on premises in pub flat) 500 99,000.83 (644 days – net daily rate 153.73) 1,795.51 (difference in earnings to 4.8.2026) 6,302.40 (8 months) £1,300 (up to 9.1.2026) Total 108,898.73 £75,982.63 Case No: 6010549/2024 Post dismissal earnings Adjust for mitigation payments of 55,229.15 Net award 53,669.58 Gross up award above 30,000 at 40% tax rate (30,000 made up of basic and 20,200 compensatory, leaving 33,469.58 (60%) to gross up to 100% = 55,782.63. Total compensatory award grossed up = 75,982.63 (20,200 + 55,782.63) An award for injury to feelings Interest Upper end of middle Vento band (11,700 to 35,200) 32,000 At 8% from date of suspension (18.3.2024) to 9.1.2026 = 4,643.07 £36,643.07£122,425.70[2]The Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996 do not apply.
REASONS
[1]The claimant made an application dated 8 January 2026 for a preparation time order against the respondents, on the ground that they acted unreasonably in the way they conducted the proceedings.[2]The basis of the application was that the respondents did not comply with disclosure and case management orders, and did not engage properly with the tribunal process. This resulted in the claimant having to do substantial additional work, such as compile the bundle and prepare remedy materials without the respondents’ documents. The Law The Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
The Law
[3]Rule 74 states relevantly:(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 …(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 the proceedings, or part of it, have been conducted, Case No: 6010549/2024 (b) Any claim, response or reply had no reasonable prospects of success, or (c) A hearing has been postponed or adjourned on the application of a party made less than 7 days before the date on which that hearing begins.(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.(4) … Caselaw[4]An award of costs is the exception rather than the rule in Employment Tribunal proceedings, as acknowledged in Gee v Shell UK Limited [2003] IRLR 82.[5]In Monaghan v Close Thornton Solicitor [2002] All ER (D) 288 (Feb) paragraph 22, the EAT confirmed that an award of costs is a two-stage exercise. First the question is whether the discretion pursuant to Rule 76 (as it then was) has arisen. The second question is whether that discretion should be exercised by making an award of costs and if so, in what amount.[6]McPherson v BNP Paribas (London Branch) 2004 ICR 1398, CA provides - when exercising its discretion under the grounds of “conduct”, a tribunal should take into account the “nature, gravity and effect” of a party’s unreasonable conduct as factors relevant to the exercise of discretion (paragraph 40).[7]In Yerrakalva v Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council [2011] EWCA Civ 1255, the EAT stated at paragraph 41: “the vital point in exercising discretion was to look at the whole picture of what had happened in the case and to ask whether there had 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 had.” Discussion and conclusion[8]The respondents both failed to submit a response to the claim and did not engage with the process. As a result the tribunal refused them permission to take part in the final hearing. Whilst it fell to the claimant to prepare the trial bundle, he was not otherwise disadvantaged, and there were sufficient documents and oral evidence for the tribunal to reach decisions on both liability and remedy.[9]It is not unusual for respondents, who do not contest a claim, to not engage with the tribunal process and, in this case, it cannot be said to be unreasonable conduct. The respondents simply stood back and awaited the tribunal’s determination. The bar is high in establishing unreasonable conduct and it is not met in this instance. Consequently, the application is Case No: 6010549/2024 refused.