FAIR EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL

CASE REF:	22/13FET

CLAIMANT:			Aine Heaney	

RESPONDENT:		Silverwood Service Station Ltd

DECISION ON AN APPLICATION FOR COSTS
The unanimous decision of the tribunal is that the claimant shall pay to the respondent the sum of £225.00 in respect of preparation costs.

Constitution of Tribunal:
Chairman:		Miss E McCaffrey
Members:		Mrs E Torrens
			Mr A Crawford

Appearances:
The claimant did not attend and was not represented.

The respondent was represented by Mr Gareth Herron.

1.	This hearing came about following the decision of the Fair Employment Tribunal that the claimant’s claim of religious discrimination against the respondent should be dismissed.  That decision was issued on 27 September 2013.

2.	Following that hearing, the respondent’s representative sent an application to the Tribunal seeking costs in the matter which they specified as being preparation time costs of £450 (25 hours at £18.00 per hour), £225.00 for their representative’s attendance at Tribunal, £160.00 for costs of wages for four witnesses to attend the Tribunal hearing and travelling expenses of £39.00 paid to witnesses.

3.	The claimant sent a letter to the Tribunal indicating that her claim in her view was not a vexatious claim and resisting the application for costs.  In particular she indicated that she was currently on a retail apprenticeship earning £2.68 per hour and asked that this would be taken into consideration.
4.	The claimant did not attend the hearing in relation to this matter.  The respondent’s representative Mr Herron did attend.  We took the opportunity to explain to him that under Rule 37 of the Fair Employment Tribunal (Rules of Procedures) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2005 (as amended) the Tribunal was only entitled to make an award for preparation time up to, but not including, any time spent at hearing.  It was also noted that in making any order for costs under a preparation time order, the Tribunal or chairman may have regard to the paying party’s ability to pay when considering whether an order should be made or how much that order should be (Rule 39(3)).

5.	Mr Herron explained to us that the respondent had had to devote considerable time and resources to defending a claim which they believed was ill-founded and vexatious.  He indicated that the respondent had also had to deal with customers coming into the shop who had become aware of the claim brought by the claimant and he had to deal with their curiosity and enquiries.  

6.	We have considered all of these matters.  We appreciate that the respondent was put to considerable time and trouble in preparing for the defence of this claim.  We also note the claimant signally failed to adduce any evidence whatsoever of religious discrimination in her statements to the Tribunal, in spite of the fact that the lack of evidence being adduced in relation to this matter in her statement had been pointed out to her and her representative at a Case Management Discussion.

7.	We explained to the respondent’s representative that we could not make any order for attendance at Tribunal or for witness expenses.  We are also conscious that the claimant’s income is modest as she is on a retail apprenticeship.  However, we are of the view that the proceedings brought by the claimant against the respondent in this matter were vexatious in that there was no evidence whatsoever of religious discrimination adduced by the claimant to the Tribunal.  The respondent, however, had to prepare to defend the case, involve other staff in that defence and take them away from their normal duties to defend the claim.

8.	In all the circumstances we believe that it would be just and equitable to make an award of £225.00 costs in favour of the respondent, and we order the claimant to pay to the respondent the sum of £255.00 accordingly.

Chairman:

Date and place of hearing:  18 October 2013, Belfast.	

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: