Bristol Waste Company Ltd

Case Summary

The claim was dismissed and the claimant ordered to pay the respondent's costs of £12,807.60 due to the claimant's vexatious conduct and obstruction of the proceedings.

The tribunal found that the claimant's conduct was vexatious and obstructive, resulting in a costs order against the claimant under rule 76(1)(a).

• •vexatious conduct
• •obstruction of proceedings

Case No: 6000216/2023 10.7 Judgment with reasons – rule 62 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mr P Fitzgerald Respondent: Bristol Waste Company Limited Heard at: Bristol On: 21 October 2024 Before: Employment Judge Livesey Representation: Claimant: Did not attend Respondent: Ms Johns, counsel JUDGMENT The Respondent’s application under rule 76 (1)(a) succeeds and the Claimant is to pay the sum of £12,807.60 in respect of its costs. REASONS 1. This hearing was convened to determine the Respondent’s application for costs. Pages cited within these Reasons relate to pages within the hearing bundle unless otherwise stated and have been quoted in square brackets. Pages in the supplemental bundle had been cited as follows; ‘[SB;...]’. Background 2. This claim has a long and difficult history. 3. By a Claim dated 3 February 2023, the Claimant brought complaints of unfair dismissal (ss. 98 and 103A), detriment on the grounds of public interest disclosure, breach of contract and/or unlawful deductions from wages. 4. After a response was filed, the matter came before Employment Judge Goraj on 12 July 2023 for initial case management. The issues were identified, directions were given and the case was listed for a five-day hearing in March 2024. 5. A further case management ‘catch up’ hearing took place before Employment Judge Volkmer on 23 January 2024. She recorded the fact Case No: 6000216/2023 10.7 Judgment with reasons – rule 62 that neither party had been able to comply with the directions. The problems were attributed to an illness which the Claimant had suffered and the volume of the Respondent’s disclosure. She therefore decided to postpone the March hearing and to relist it for seven days with fresh directions. The issues were revisited and amended where appropriate. 6.…