Claimant v The Christmas Decorators (Franchising) Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
This claim was filed and case managed but the substantive hearing scheduled for October 2024 was postponed before evidence could be heard. The merits have not yet been determined.
This claim was filed and case managed but the substantive hearing scheduled for October 2024 was postponed before evidence could be heard. The merits have not yet been determined.
The judgment refers to one alleged act of direct sex discrimination. The substantive hearing was postponed before evidence could be heard. The merits have not yet been determined.
This claim was filed and case managed but the substantive hearing scheduled for October 2024 was postponed before evidence could be heard. The merits have not yet been determined.
This claim was brought in the alternative to the unlawful deduction from wages claim in relation to the same sums. The substantive hearing was postponed before evidence could be heard. The merits have not yet been determined.
Facts
The claimant brought claims including unfair dismissal, equal pay, sex discrimination, and breach of contract. A four-day hearing was listed for October 2024. The first respondent, represented by Croner, failed to comply with multiple case management orders including preparation of the hearing bundle and witness statements. On the first day of the hearing, the respondent applied for a postponement. The tribunal granted the postponement, finding it was necessary due to the respondent's breaches of orders and lack of preparation.
Decision
The tribunal awarded the claimant £5,060 in preparation time against the first respondent. The tribunal found the respondent's conduct fell under Rule 76 due to the late postponement application and multiple breaches of case management orders. The claimant had claimed for 1,167.5 hours of preparation time, but the tribunal assessed 115 hours as reasonable and proportionate given the complexity of the case, applying the hourly rate of £44.
Practical note
Failure to comply with case management orders regarding hearing bundles and witness statements can result in substantial preparation time orders, even where claims have not yet been determined on their merits.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2407408/2023
- Decision date
- 13 June 2025
- Hearing type
- costs
- Hearing days
- —
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- other
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No