Mr E Dikyol v The Keyholding Company Ltd: 6014254/2024

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS

Case No 6014254/2024

Between

Mr E DikyolClaimant

The Keyholding Company LtdRespondent

Before

Employment Judge Wright

In person for claimant

Ms E Harmer - solicitor for respondent

Date 11 September 2025

REASONS

[1]The case management preliminary hearing was not effective. This was due to the Claimant being in breach of the Tribunal’s Orders. He had not pursued his claim.

[2]Two basic and straight-forward Orders had been made on the 26/3/2025 and 13/6/2025. Both Orders contained a costs warning. The Respondent drew the Claimant’s attention to the costs warning on the 17/7/2025.

[3]The Claimant made two applications for this hearing to be postponed. Both were unsuccessful. His reasons were: he had been in Türkiye since December 2024; his mother had had an operation (limited untranslated evidence provided); and he relied upon his own ill health and the lack of a stable internet connection in Türkiye (no medical evidence provided, although it may well be that the political situation in Türkiye did result in an instable connection and that certainly was the case).

[4]The Claimant expanded upon his reasons for a postponement at the outset of the hearing. His explanation for not having any medical evidence regarding his own health was, that he needed to see his GP in London. He also referred to many personal difficulties which he mentioned and relied upon for the first time at the hearing. They were also unevidenced.

[5]Even if the Tribunal accepted the Claimant’s position without any evidence, there was no explanation as to why he had not provided answers to straightforward questions about his case, for over five months. There had been a second Order to provide that information in June and the Respondent had prompted the Claimant in July.

[6]The Claimant proved capable of contacting the Tribunal when he made an application for a postponement. Yet, he had not answered the questions posed in a five-month period.

[7]The Claimant has not actively pursued his claim and he is in breach of two Orders of the Tribunal. Neither Order was particularly onerous. The Claimant was Ordered to provide his view on aspects of his claim.

[8]It is accepted the Claimant is a litigant in person. He has brought claims under the Equality Act 2010 and that is a complex piece of legislation. It was the Claimant’s choice to make those claims. Even then, the questions posed were not complicated. In respect of age discrimination, he was asked for the date when he was treated badly (in any event, the request for the date of the event complaint about, is in bold type at the top of box 8.2) and then ‘who’ ‘did what’ and why was that ‘bad treatment to do with your age’. It is not accepted that in a five-month period, the Claimant was not able to address and answer those questions.

[9]In addition, the Claimant is also pursuing other more straight-forward claims, such as unfair dismissal (he was asked ‘why do you think your dismissal was unfair’) and arrears of pay/other payments. In respect of the latter, he was asked to provide simple information about the payments he was claiming.

[10]The result of the Claimant’s failure to comply with the Orders is that not only was this hearing ineffective, the Respondent is still unaware of the basis of the Claimant’s claim, which was presented in October 2024, almost a year later. Of course, it can understand the unfair dismissal claim as it terminated the Claimant’s employment; it says for fair reasons. There is a difficulty with the other more vague allegations. For example, what does the Claimant mean by: ‘I had over 20k stolen from me by pen pushing and cheating and being forced to get the jobs done. the overtimes and extra works carried out were not paid.’ ?

[11]Unless this reference is obvious to the Respondent (it is not to the Tribunal), it cannot know where to start to investigate to answer the allegation.

[12]The statement: ‘I was subject to an age discrimination as so many old, experienced elderly staff members were forced to leav resign. They got rid of the memory of the operations and employ youngsters hire/fire based to get cooperation’ is similarly vague.

[13]The Claimant’s breach of the Orders has also resulted in the final hearing listed for three days on the 26/3/2026 being converted into a case management preliminary hearing and a further final hearing has been listed for January 2027 (the earliest available date in this region).

[14]The Respondent sent the Claimant a case management agenda on the 21/8/2025 in advance of this hearing and invited him to add in his comments in red text. The Claimant did not engage with this approach. He did not even respond to say something along the lines of ‘I am finding this all to overwhelming’. He simply did not respond. That is not in accordance with the overriding objective.

[15]The Respondent has prepared for this preliminary hearing, notwithstanding the Claimant’s lack of engagement.

[16]To a limited extent, the Respondent’s efforts have not been wasted as the work it has done can be used for the next preliminary hearing. It is not however the case that the Respondent can sit back and simply resend its paperwork for the next preliminary hearing. If the Claimant does not provide the information he has been Ordered to provide, the Respondent will have to amend the case management agenda and the list of issues. Those are duplicate costs and which have been incurred due to the Claimant’s failure to comply with the Tribunal’s Orders.

[17]In summary, the Claimant is in breach of two Orders of the Tribunal and he has not actively pursued his claim.

[18]The Respondent’s application was made under Rule 74(3): (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.

[19]Ms Harmer did not have the calculations to hand and said the Respondent’s legal costs in drafting and sending the email of the 17/7/2025 and preparing for this hearing were £4690. It is not proportionate to request a breakdown of those costs. The Respondent may wish on another occasion, when it intends to make a costs application, to have such a breakdown available and to serve it upon the Claimant.

[20]The Claimant was asked about his ability to pay any costs which were awarded and he said ‘if I have to make a payment I have no choice, I will have to’. He referred to taking out a loan before leaving the UK and said he was living off that and off savings (rule 82).

[21]When determining an application for costs, the ET should apply a three-stage approach: 21.1. Is the relevant jurisdictional threshold in rule 74 met? 21.2. If so, should the ET exercise its discretion in favour of making a costs order? 21.3. If so, what sum of costs should the ET order?

[22]In circumstances where the Tribunal finds that the jurisdictional threshold in rule 74 is met, the Tribunal retains a broad discretion as to whether to make a costs order and the amount of any costs awarded. Whilst there is no closed list of factors relevant to the exercise of the Tribunal’s discretion, the following factors are often relevant: 22.1. Costs orders are intended to be compensatory, not punitive (Lodwick v Southwark LBC

[2004] ICR 884

, CA). 22.2. The paying party’s ability to pay is a factor which the Tribunal is entitled, but not obligated, to consider (rule 82). Where regard is had to the paying party’s ability to pay, that factor should be balanced against the need to compensate the receiving party who has unreasonably been put to expense (Howman v Queen Elizabeth Hospital Kings Lynn

UKEAT/0509/12

). 22.3. Any assessment or consideration of means need not be limited to the paying party’s means as at the date the order is made. It is sufficient that there is a “realistic prospect that [they] might at some point in the future be able to afford to pay” (Vaughan v London Borough of Lewisham

[2013] IRLR 713

, EAT). 22.4. Where the Tribunal does decide to take the paying party’s means into account, it must do so on the basis of sufficient evidence (for example by the paying party completing a county court form EX140) (Oni v NHS Leicester City

UKEAT/0144/12

). 22.5. There is no requirement to limit costs to the amount the paying party can afford (Arrowsmith v Nottingham Trent University

[2012] ICR 159

, EAT). 22.6. The Tribunal may have regard to the means of a party’s spouse or other immediate family members (Abaya v Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust

UKEAT/0258/16

). 22.7. Whether a party is legally represented may be a relevant factor. An unrepresented litigant may be afforded more latitude than a party who has the benefit of professional legal advice and representation (AQ Ltd v Holden

[2012] IRLR 648

, EAT).

[23]The Claimant’s unevidenced personal difficulties are for the purposes of this application not disputed. It is not however accepted that in a five month period, the Claimant has not been able to comply with the Tribunal’s Orders. He has demonstrated this by applying the postpone the hearing against the background of his mother’s operation. It is accepted that will have been a difficult and stressful time. In the months prior to that however and notwithstanding other personal difficulties, it is not accepted that the Claimant was unable or so incapacitated that he could not provide answers to questions about his own claim.

[24]The preliminary hearing was ineffective. Further delay has been caused as a result. A further preliminary hearing has had to be listed and the earliest a further final hearing could be listed was then ten months hence.

[25]The Claimant was in breach of the Tribunal’s Orders and so engages Rule 74(3).

[26]Should the Tribunal exercise its discretion in favour of making a costs award?

[27]The Tribunal finds that it is appropriate to exercise its discretion and to make a costs award in favour of the Respondent.

[28]The Claimant has provided no satisfactory explanation for his failure to engage. He has engaged when he wished to make an application. He has had a significant period of time within which to comply with the Orders. He was reminded by the Respondent. The consequences of his lack of engagement has resulted in delay and incurred unnecessary costs for the Respondent.

[29]The Claimant’s response in respect of his ability to pay any cost award made was not particularly satisfactory or helpful to him.

[30]The Tribunal reminds itself that costs are compensatory and are not punitive. The costs incurred of £4690 are reasonable taking into account the work which has been done. As observed, an element of that work can be repurposed for the next preliminary hearing, however, it is accepted that much of the work will have to be repeated in view of the lack of response or engagement from the Claimant.

[31]For those reasons, the Tribunal finds the costs threshold is met, it was persuaded to exercise its discretion in favour of the Respondent and taking into account the Claimant’s ability to pay, the Tribunal Orders him to pay to the Respondent the sum of £3,690. Approved by: