Claimant v Allica Bank Limited

Outcome

Facts

This was a costs judgment following a substantive hearing that was significantly disrupted. The respondent's only witness, Ms Carly Nutkin, contacted the respondent's external solicitors while under oath despite clear tribunal instructions not to discuss her evidence. This caused the loss of a hearing day on 31 January 2025 as the tribunal had to consider whether a fair trial was still possible. The tribunal found the conduct disappointing but allowed the hearing to continue. Ms Nutkin also left the hearing early that day due to a work commitment, further delaying proceedings. The claimant, who was self-represented, applied for a preparation time order for the additional hours she had to spend preparing for the re-listed hearing.

Decision

The tribunal granted the claimant's application for a preparation time order in the sum of £205.00, representing five hours of additional preparation time at £41 per hour. The tribunal found that Ms Nutkin's conduct in contacting the respondent's solicitors while under oath was unreasonable under Rule 74(2)(a) of the Employment Tribunal Rules and caused the claimant to incur wasted preparation time. The tribunal considered the whole picture of the respondent's conduct and exercised its discretion to award costs, noting the respondent was professionally represented and made no submissions on inability to pay.

Practical note

Legal authorities cited