Claimant v Whisky 1901 Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the claimant was suspended and given a 12-month warning because she raised a grievance (a protected act). The respondent's defence had no reasonable prospect of success as Mr Sparkes admitted he suspended the claimant on Croner's advice after receiving her grievance, and all 13 misconduct allegations emerged from Croner's investigation of that grievance, not before her suspension.
Facts
This is a costs judgment following a full merits hearing on 11-15 September 2024 in which the claimant succeeded on most claims including victimisation and was awarded £51,776.67. The respondent persistently failed to comply with disclosure orders, refused to engage with the claimant's solicitors despite repeated requests and four costs warnings, made a very late postponement application blaming the claimant, and attempted multiple times during the hearing to introduce previously undisclosed documents. The respondent's defence to the victimisation claims regarding suspension and a 12-month warning had no reasonable prospect of success, as its own witness (Mr Sparkes) admitted suspending the claimant after receiving her grievance on Croner's advice.
Decision
The tribunal found the respondent had conducted proceedings unreasonably, had breached tribunal orders on disclosure, and had pursued a defence with no reasonable prospect of success on the victimisation claims. The tribunal exercised its discretion to award costs of £6,230.70 (one quarter of the claimant's solicitor fees), finding this represented the additional costs incurred due to the respondent's unreasonable conduct in chasing disclosure, dealing with late applications, and preparing the victimisation case which should not have been defended.
Practical note
Persistent failure to comply with disclosure obligations, lack of cooperation in case preparation, and defending claims with no reasonable prospect of success (particularly where a party's own witness evidence undermines the defence) will result in a costs award even where the paying party was represented and can blame its representatives' failings.
Award breakdown
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2205139/2023
- Decision date
- 18 September 2024
- Hearing type
- costs
- Hearing days
- —
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Name
- Whisky 1901 Ltd
- Sector
- hospitality
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor