Cases2302668/2024

Claimant v TATA Consulting Service Limited

3 February 2025Before Employment Judge D WrightLondon Southon papers

Outcome

Other

Individual claims

Unfair Dismissalnot determined

Claim substantively not determined. Hearing was converted to case management because bundle was not ready due to claimant's unreasonable conduct.

Breach of Contractnot determined

Notice pay claim not determined. Hearing adjourned due to bundle preparation issues caused by claimant's unreasonable behaviour.

Holiday Paynot determined

Holiday pay claim not determined. Hearing could not proceed because of dispute over bundle preparation in which claimant made unfounded allegations.

Facts

A two-day hearing scheduled for November 2024 had to be converted to case management because the bundle was not ready. The claimant, acting in person, refused to agree to a chronological bundle as directed by the tribunal, insisted on a thematic bundle, made unfounded allegations that the respondent had tampered with evidence and was trying to hide documents, and failed to cooperate with bundle preparation despite the respondent's engagement. The respondent applied for costs.

Decision

The tribunal found the claimant had acted unreasonably by refusing to follow directions on bundle preparation, making spurious unfounded allegations of evidence tampering, and failing to cooperate, causing the hearing to be adjourned. A costs order of £1,000 was made against the claimant, reduced from the £20,000 respondent's counsel fee (considered excessive for this type of case) and further reduced taking into account the claimant's limited means as an unemployed person with three months' savings.

Practical note

Unrepresented claimants must comply with tribunal directions on bundle preparation and avoid making unfounded allegations against the other side, or risk a costs order even where their limited means are taken into account.

Legal authorities cited

Statutes

Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 Rule 74Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules Rule 76(1)(a)

Case details

Case number
2302668/2024
Decision date
3 February 2025
Hearing type
costs
Hearing days
Classification
procedural

Respondent

Sector
technology
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Claimant representation

Represented
No