Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions

THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS

 

CASE REF:  890/15

 

 

 

CLAIMANT:                          Michelle Black

 

 

RESPONDENT:                  Runwood Homes Limited

 

 

 

DECISION ON A REVIEW

On a review of my decision on costs in this matter, issued to the parties on 9 December 2015, I vary the award of costs awarded against the claimant to £300.

I confirm my decision not to make a wasted costs order against the claimant’s representative, Mr Aidan Hanna.

 

 

 

Constitution of Tribunal:

Employment Judge (sitting alone):       Employment Judge D Buchanan

 

Appearances:

The claimant, Mrs Black, in person.

The respondent company’s solicitors sent a letter to the tribunal on 6 January 2016, which I have treated as written representations.

The claimant’s representative, Mr Aidan Hanna, did not appear.

 

1.	(i)	The costs application, the decision in which has given rise to this review, was heard by me on 29 October 2015.  It was listed on the application of the respondent company, which had sought an Order for costs against the claimant, Mrs Black, and a wasted costs order against Mr Aidan Hanna, who had been her representative throughout the proceedings.
	(ii)	Neither Mrs Black nor Mr Hanna attended the proceedings on 29 October 2015.  After consideration of the respondent company’s counsel’s submissions, I reserved my decision, and ultimately on 9 December 2015, a written decision issued whereby I ordered that the claimant should pay to the respondent company the sum of £500 in respect of costs incurred by the latter in defending the proceedings.  The basis of that award was that the claimant, in bringing and conducting these proceedings, had acted unreasonably and that the bringing and conducting of the proceedings had been misconceived.  I made no Order for wasted costs against Mr Hanna.
	(iii)	My reasons for making an Order against Mrs Black and for not making an Order against Mr Hanna were fully set out in the decision of 9 December 2015.
2.		By a letter sent to the Office of the Tribunals on 10 December 2015 Mrs Black sought a review of my decision.  In that letter she stated that she was not aware of the tribunal hearing because her representative, Mr Hanna, had not told her it was taking place.  In that letter she also indicated that she had paid Mr Hanna for his services as a representative.  There was no evidence on this issue before me at the hearing on 29 October 2015.
3.		Having regard to the contents of Mrs Black’s letter I directed that a review hearing be held, and she, the respondent company’s solicitors, and Mr Hanna were given notice of it.  All parties were informed that, on my direction, the hearing would deal not only with the claimant’s application for a review but would also consider, in the light of her letter of 10 December 2015, whether the decision not to make a costs order against Mr Hanna should also be reviewed.
4.		At the review hearing I heard evidence from the claimant.  Clearly in the absence of Mr Hanna, who chose not to attend, she had free rein, as it were, to paint her own picture of the relationship between her and Mr Hanna, as her representative.  Notwithstanding this, I am satisfied that he did not keep her fully informed of developments in the case and that she was not aware of the date of the hearing.   In the circumstances, I revoked my decision and heard the matter anew.
5.	(i)	On a review, having heard the claimant’s evidence, it was clear to me that this was a case which she wanted to bring, despite any encouragement to do so from Mr Hanna, and that having regard to the facts and circumstances set out in my decision of 9 December 2015, her conduct in proceeding with this case was unreasonable, and the proceedings were totally misconceived.
	(ii)	I have now had the opportunity of hearing evidence from the claimant on her means.  These are modest, but I am satisfied that she has the ability to make some payment in respect of costs and I now vary the amount awarded against her to £300.
6.		In relation to Mr Hanna, I continue to have regard to the principle that the wasted costs jurisdiction should only be exercised with great caution and as a last resort.  The claimant’s evidence would lead me to believe he showed no very great integrity in his dealings with her and that he sailed very close to the wind in this instance.  With some hesitation, I confirm my original decision to make no Order against him.  The respondent company’s application for costs followed a withdrawal, not a full merits hearing, and the issue of proportionality is something which also needs to be borne in mind in the circumstances.  (see:  Gill -v- Humanwave Europe Ltd [2010] IRLR 877

 

 

 

 

 

Employment Judge:

 

 

Date and place of hearing:  20January 2016, Belfast

 

 

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: