Stopwatch UK

Case Summary

The Employment Judge ordered Ms D Sangster to pay £1,750.00 in costs for resisting the amendment of her claim.

The tribunal ordered the claimant to pay costs for resisting an amendment to her claim, indicating that her resistance to the amendment was unreasonable or unsuccessful.

• •vexatious, abusively, disruptively or otherwise unreasonably in the way that the proceedings have been conducted
• •application to amend had no reasonable prospects of success and was unmeritorious
• •delay in bringing the application

Case No: 2303207/2023 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Ms D Sangster Respondent: Stopwatch UK Heard at: London South Employment Tribunal (in chambers) Before: Employment Judge Abbott (sitting alone) JUDGMENT ON COSTS The Respondent's application for a costs order under Rule 76 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 succeeds. The Claimant is ordered to pay the Respondent the sum of £1,750.00 in respect of its costs of resisting the Claimant’s application to amend. REASONS 1. By decision made on 8 November 2024, for reasons given orally that day, the Tribunal refused an application by the Claimant to amend her claim to introduce a complaint of discrimination arising from disability. 2. The Respondent has applied for a costs order on the basis that the Claimant acted “vexatiously, abusively, disruptively or otherwise unreasonably in ... the way that the proceedings (or part) have been conducted” (Rule 76(1)(a)); specifically, it says that the application to amend had no reasonable prospects of success and was unmeritorious, and furthermore it was (contrary to the Claimant’s submissions) brought after an unreasonable delay. It claims its solicitors’ fees for dealing with the application (including the hearing) in the sum of £2,100. 3. The Claimant resists the application. She argues that the threshold for making a costs order is not met. In particular, she argues that the discrimination arising from disability claim would have had good prospects of success had it been allowed to proceed, she addresses the alleged delay in bringing the application (laying some blame at the Respondent’s door), and notes that much of the costs were incurred because of the Respondent’s request that the application be determined at a hearing rather than on paper. 4. I had indicated my provisional view at the hearing that costs could be dealt with on paper. Neither party has objected …