Cases3310699/2023

Claimant v Day Lewis PLC

3 January 2025Before Employment Judge S GeorgeReadingin person

Outcome

Partly successful

Individual claims

Discrimination Arising from Disability (s.15)(disability)partly succeeded

The respondent initially denied knowledge of disability but conceded three weeks before the final hearing that the fact of disability was known or ought to have been known during employment. The claimant succeeded on some aspects but the respondent successfully defended other matters.

Holiday Paypartly succeeded

The respondent clarified the position on holiday pay on the first day of the hearing in a way that the claimant ultimately accepted. This represented a partial concession.

Facts

Mrs Baker brought claims against Day Lewis PLC including disability discrimination and holiday pay. She disclosed her health conditions on a new starter form. The respondent initially denied knowledge of her disability but conceded the point three weeks before the final hearing. The claimant was represented by her husband, Mr Baker, who applied for a preparation time order claiming the respondent had missed deadlines, failed to comply with orders, and conducted the proceedings unreasonably.

Decision

The tribunal dismissed the application for a preparation time order. The panel found that while the respondent made some late concessions and had some delays in providing documents, this conduct did not meet the high threshold of being vexatious or unreasonable. The respondent's conduct was within the normal range of litigation behaviour, and concessions were made at appropriate times. The claimant succeeded on some claims but the respondent successfully defended others.

Practical note

Late concessions and delays in disclosure during litigation do not automatically constitute unreasonable or vexatious conduct warranting a preparation time order; such conduct must significantly exceed normal litigation practice to justify such an award.

Legal authorities cited

Attorney General v Barker [2000] CO/4380/98

Statutes

Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 Rule 76

Case details

Case number
3310699/2023
Decision date
3 January 2025
Hearing type
full merits
Hearing days
3
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
retail
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Claimant representation

Represented
Yes
Rep type
lay rep