Claimant v Barclays Execution Services Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
This was a costs judgment relating to a postponed preliminary hearing on time limits. The substantive claim of unfair dismissal has not yet been determined.
This was a costs judgment relating to a postponed preliminary hearing on time limits. The substantive claim of detriment for protected disclosures has not yet been determined.
This was a costs judgment relating to a postponed preliminary hearing on time limits. The claimant brought claims under the Equality Act 2010 but these have not yet been determined. The specific protected characteristic was not identified in this judgment.
Facts
The claimant, a manager in financial services, brought claims including unfair dismissal, whistleblowing and discrimination against Barclays and 16 individual respondents. His employment ended on 23 February 2021 and he presented his claim on 10 June 2021, acknowledging some claims might be out of time. A preliminary hearing was listed for 29 April 2022 to determine time limits. The claimant made two applications to postpone which were refused by the judge who specified what medical evidence would be required. The claimant failed to provide a witness statement as ordered and at 20:04 on 28 April 2022 sent an email stating he would not attend the hearing, attaching a brief letter from his psychotherapist. The respondents attended on 29 April 2022 and the judge postponed the hearing.
Decision
The tribunal found that the claimant had acted unreasonably under Rule 76(1)(a) by failing to obtain and provide medical evidence to support a postponement application in a timely manner, despite being given clear guidance on what was required and having over a month to obtain it. The judge was not satisfied that the claimant's ill health prevented him from complying with directions or making a properly evidenced application, particularly given he was working in a high-level managerial role in banking. The tribunal ordered the claimant to pay £3,500 representing counsel's daily fee for attendance at the abortive hearing.
Practical note
A party seeking a postponement on health grounds must provide timely and properly reasoned medical evidence, and failure to do so despite clear judicial guidance may result in a costs order even where the party has a disability, particularly if they demonstrate ability to function at a high level in employment.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3204704/2021
- Decision date
- 3 November 2025
- Hearing type
- costs
- Hearing days
- —
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- financial services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Manager
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No