Wasted costs awarded against representative who failed to respond
A tribunal awarded wasted costs against a company's representative for failing to respond to correspondence and case management orders, causing the other side to incur unnecessary preparation costs.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #wasted-costs
- #transfer-of-undertakings
- #failure-to-respond
- #costs-warning
- #preliminary-hearing-preparation
Key facts
- The claimant brought claims of unfair dismissal and failure to consult against both respondents.
- The first respondent provided evidence that the claimant's employment had transferred to the second respondent.
- The second respondent's representative failed to respond to correspondence and case management orders for several months.
- The first respondent incurred costs of £1,980 preparing for a preliminary hearing that was later postponed.
- The tribunal found the second respondent's representative negligent in not responding promptly.
Timeline
-
Transfer of undertaking
The first respondent's business transferred to the second respondent.
-
Claim presented
The claimant submitted an Employment Tribunal application against both respondents.
-
First respondent's response
The first respondent asserted that the claimant's employment had transferred to the second respondent.
-
Disclosure of sale documents
The first respondent disclosed the sale of undertaking documents to the claimant and second respondent.
-
Employer's liability information sent
The first respondent sent employer's liability information including the claimant's name to the second respondent.
-
Case management preliminary hearing
Employment Judge Ross listed a preliminary hearing to decide whether the claimant was included in the transfer.
-
Costs warning to second respondent
The first respondent warned the second respondent that it would pursue wasted costs if the matter continued.
-
Further document sent
The claimant's representative sent a document titled 'Sale of Business pdf' to the second respondent.
-
Wasted costs application
The first respondent applied for wasted costs against the second respondent's representative.
-
Preliminary hearing postponed
The second respondent's representative applied for a postponement on the day of the preliminary hearing.
The legal issue
Whether a representative's failure to respond to correspondence and case management orders amounted to improper, unreasonable, or negligent conduct, justifying a wasted costs order.
The outcome
The tribunal granted the first respondent's application for wasted costs against the second respondent's representative.
The key reason was that the representative failed to respond to emails and case management orders for several months, causing the first respondent to prepare unnecessarily for a preliminary hearing.
Compensation breakdown:
- Total wasted costs: £1,980
- Preparation for preliminary hearing: £1,980
Lessons & takeaways
- Respond promptly to tribunal correspondence and orders to avoid wasted costs applications.
- If you are a representative, ensure you communicate with all parties and the tribunal in a timely manner.
- A costs warning from the other side should be taken seriously as it can lead to a formal application.
- Negligence or unreasonable conduct by a representative can result in personal liability for costs.
What this case shows
This case highlights the importance of communication in employment tribunal proceedings. The former employee brought claims against both his former employer (Martin McColl Limited) and the company that took over the business (Sara's Group Limited). While the first respondent engaged constructively, the second respondent's representative failed to respond to emails and case management orders for months. This led the first respondent to prepare for a preliminary hearing that was ultimately postponed, incurring £1,980 in wasted costs.
What could have been done differently
The second respondent's representative could have avoided the wasted costs order by simply responding to correspondence. The tribunal noted that the representative's failure to engage was negligent and unreasonable. A timely response, even to say instructions were being taken, would have prevented the need for the first respondent to prepare for a hearing that was later adjourned.
Why this matters
This case serves as a reminder that representatives can be personally liable for costs if their conduct falls below acceptable standards. For individuals considering tribunal claims, it shows that the other side's behaviour can have financial consequences. It also underscores the importance of clear communication between parties to avoid unnecessary expense.
Similar cases
Wasted costs application against NHS Trust solicitors dismissed after settlement agreement
A junior doctor's attempt to obtain a wasted costs order against the solicitors for an NHS Trust was dismissed because a 2018 settlement agreement precluded the application and there was no improper conduct.
Employer granted extension to defend claim despite missing deadline
A tribunal granted an employer's late application to defend a claim but ordered it to pay costs for unreasonable conduct, while dismissing a wasted costs application against its former representative.
TUPE transfer and automatic unfair dismissal: employee wins after asserting statutory rights
A former employee of Plau Bistro Limited was automatically unfairly dismissed after asserting a statutory right following a TUPE transfer. The tribunal awarded £2,396.23 for unpaid wages, holiday pay, and notice pay.
TUPE transfer failure: employees awarded £25,000 after being left behind
Two employees were unfairly dismissed and awarded £25,000 in damages after their employer failed to transfer them under TUPE regulations. The tribunal also made a protective award of 90 days' pay for failure to consult.