The hearing involved an application by the claimant for a Preparation Time Order following a decision issued by the tribunal on 6 December 2013 that the claimant had been unfairly dismissed and unlawfully discriminated against on grounds of her race. A preparation time order effectively compensates a non-legally represented party for the time spent preparing the case. 

It was claimed that respondents had ignored the points put forward at the investigation and disciplinary stage and also had not properly addressed the claimant’s grievance in relation to discriminatory treatment she had received. In considering their ruling, the Tribunal took account of the content of Rules 44-45 inclusive of the Industrial Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2005. The Tribunal relied on the guidance of Phillips J in Cartiers Superfoods Ltd v Laws [1978] IRLR 315 to the effect that in order to determine whether a party acted frivolously, it was necessary to look and see what that party knew or ought to have known if he had gone about the matter sensibly. The Tribunal set a high benchmark for successful applications and outlined this by commenting:

"In all the circumstances we are not satisfied that the respondent or its representative acted vexatiously, abusively, disruptively or otherwise unreasonably, or that the conducting of the proceedings was misconceived on their part."

Practical lessons

The Tribunal clearly set out that whilst a respondent may act unreasonably or in a manner that attracts criticism, claimants will have a tough task to show that a preparation time order is warranted. This appears to be a policy matter as much as anything, since respondents may end up being penalised for not assessing the case at the outset in the same way as a tribunal may do following a hearing in evidence.