Claimant v Hawkeye Security Support Services Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
Claimant was ordered to pay a deposit of £50 following a preliminary hearing on 3 February 2025. She failed to pay this deposit. Under rule 40(4) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024, the claim was struck out.
Claimant was ordered to pay a deposit of £50 following a preliminary hearing on 3 February 2025. She failed to pay this deposit. Under rule 40(4) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024, the claim was struck out.
An Unless Order required the claimant to provide specific details of dates she was off sick but paid holiday pay instead of sick pay, and dates she worked but was not paid, by 10 February 2025. The claimant failed to comply with the order in the required manner. The claim was dismissed pursuant to the Unless Order.
At the preliminary hearing on 3 February 2025, this claim was struck out because it was brought against an individual who had not been employed by either respondent and for whom they could not be vicariously liable.
At the preliminary hearing on 3 February 2025, this claim was struck out because it was brought against an individual who had not been employed by either respondent and for whom they could not be vicariously liable.
Facts
The claimant brought multiple claims including sex discrimination, breach of contract, unlawful deduction of wages, harassment and victimisation against two security/aviation companies. This was the fifth preliminary hearing. The claimant, who was unrepresented (represented by her sister as lay representative), had Fibromyalgia, Dyslexia and Autism. She repeatedly failed to properly particularise her claims despite multiple opportunities. At a previous hearing a deposit order of £50 was made and an Unless Order required specific details of wages claims by 10 February 2025.
Decision
The tribunal struck out the sex discrimination and breach of contract claims because the claimant failed to pay the £50 deposit ordered. The wages claims were dismissed because the claimant failed to comply with the Unless Order by the specified date. The second respondent applied for costs of over £20,000, but the judge exercised discretion to refuse costs given the claimant was a litigant in person with mental impairment who genuinely believed her claims had merit, and who had no means to pay.
Practical note
Even where a claimant's conduct of proceedings is unreasonable and legally misconceived, tribunals may exercise discretion not to award costs against unrepresented claimants with mental impairments and no means to pay, particularly where they genuinely believed their claims had merit.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3307762/2023
- Decision date
- 9 April 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- professional services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep