Cases6005631/2024

Claimant v NSLX Ltd

22 April 2025Before Employment Judge AinscoughLiverpoolon papers

Outcome

Other

Individual claims

Unlawful Deduction from Wagesnot determined

Complaint for unpaid wages for May and June 2024 (£6,666) remained live for determination at the final hearing scheduled for 9 April 2025.

Breach of Contractwithdrawn

Claimant withdrew his complaint for unpaid expenses (£2,400) at the case management preliminary hearing on 6 January 2025 after realising he would need to disclose personal credit card records to evidence the claim.

Holiday Paynot determined

Holiday pay complaint remained live for determination at the final hearing scheduled for 9 April 2025.

Breach of Contractnot determined

Complaint for notice pay for one month (£3,333) remained live for determination at the final hearing scheduled for 9 April 2025.

Facts

Claimant brought claims for unpaid wages, expenses, holiday pay and notice pay. He claimed employee status while respondent contended he was a contractor. At a case management hearing on 6 January 2025, claimant withdrew his expenses complaint (£2,400) after discussion about evidence requirements, specifically that he would need to disclose personal credit card statements. Respondent applied for preparation time order on basis that pursuing the expenses complaint was vexatious.

Decision

Tribunal dismissed respondent's application for preparation time order. Judge found the expenses complaint had a sound legal basis if claimant proved employment status, and the contract provided for expense reimbursement. Claimant withdrew the complaint strategically after understanding evidence requirements during case management hearing, which was appropriate conduct for a litigant in person. The claim was not vexatious.

Practical note

Withdrawing a claim after understanding evidence requirements at a case management hearing is not vexatious conduct, particularly for litigants in person who should not be judged by the same standards as professional representatives.

Legal authorities cited

Yerrakalva v Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council [2012] ICR 420Lodwick v Southwark London Borough Council [2004] ICR 884, CAAQ Ltd v Holden [2012] IRLR 648, EATScott v Russell [2013] EWCA Civ 1432, CAAttorney General v Barker [2000] 1 FLR 759, QBD

Statutes

Employment Tribunals Procedure Rules 2024 rule 75Employment Tribunals Procedure Rules 2024 rule 74(2)(a)Employment Tribunals Procedure Rules 2024 rule 82Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994

Case details

Case number
6005631/2024
Decision date
22 April 2025
Hearing type
costs
Hearing days
Classification
procedural

Respondent

Sector
other
Represented
No
Rep type
lay rep

Employment details

Salary band
£40,000–£50,000

Claimant representation

Represented
No