The Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust

Case Summary

The Employment Judge dismissed the claimant's application for a costs order, preparation time order, and wasted costs order. The respondent’s application for costs was refused due to the claimant's disruptive conduct during the proceedings.

The Employment Judge refused the respondent's application for costs because the claimant's disruptive conduct during the proceedings did not meet the threshold for a costs order to be awarded against the claimant.

• •disruptive and/or unreasonable conduct of the proceedings between 1 July 2024 and 9 July 2024 inclusive
• •application for preparation time and time wasted

Case Numbers: 2201210/2023 10.5 Reserved judgment with reasons – rule 62 March 2017 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Belinda Noone Respondent: The Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust Heard at: London Central (by CVP) On: 7 August 2025 Before: Tribunal Judge Jack, acting as an Employment Judge JUDGMENT The judgment of the Tribunal is as follows: 1. The respondent’s application for a costs order is refused. 2. The claimant’s application for a preparation time order is refused. 3. The claimant’s application for a wasted costs order is refused. REASONS Background 1. In a judgment made on 12 September 2024 and sent to the parties on 19 September 2024 the claim, having been withdrawn by the claimant, was dismissed. 2. The respondent applied for costs on 19 September 2024, on the basis of what it said was the claimant’s disruptive and/or unreasonable conduct of the proceedings between 1 July 2024 and 9 July 2024 inclusive. 3. The claimant provided a full response on 17 June 2025. As part of her response she made an application for preparation time and time wasted, which she quantified as £14,554.54 for injury to feelings and £1,400 for a government lump sum which she says that she was due and which was not paid. Case Numbers: 2201210/2023 10.5 Reserved judgment with reasons – rule 62 March 2017 4. The respondent had provided a bundle of 223 pages and a skeleton argument. The claimant also provided a written response to the respondent’s skeleton argument. 5. Both parties made detailed submissions. At the end of the hearing the claimant asked if she could apply for an order under rule 49 preventing or restricting disclosure. I therefore made Case Management Orders directing that any such application must be made by 21 August 2025, and have delayed giving this reserved judgment. However tribunal staff have checked whether any such appli…