The UK employment tribunal has rejected an unfair dismissal case against Novia Financial brought by former implementation executive Sarah Fisher.
She also submitted a claim for discrimination on the basis of disability and sex and/or marital status, which was also dismissed.
Judge Roper struck out Fisher’s case because she started legal proceedings for unfair dismissal before actually resigning from the company.
She presented her claim on 18 September 2019 but submitted her resignation letter only on 3 October 2019.
The judge said that “the time from which a claim of unfair dismissal can be presented to the tribunal starts from the effective date of termination”. Since Fisher was still actively working at Novia at the time, her claim had no legal grounds and was presented “prematurely”.
Timeline
Additionally, her claim for discrimination was also dismissed.
The first preliminary hearing was set for 25 March 2020, which Fisher failed to attend and had not answered any correspondence relating to it.
The employment tribunal wrote to her again on 1 May 2020 saying that it was considering striking out her case.
She replied on 11 May 2020 saying that communication from the tribunal had ended up in her email’s spam folder and that she wished to continue the proceedings.
Another preliminary hearing was then set for 26 November 2020. Meanwhile, Novia had complained to the tribunal about Fisher’s failure to engage with her former employer to prepare for the second hearing, and so applied for the unfair dismissal claim to be struck out.
Novia also applied for Fisher to pay its legal costs.
The former executive attended the second preliminary hearing, but failed to appear at the main hearing on 18 March 2021 where she was supposed to be cross-examined and during which the court was to determine Novia’s application for costs.
Additionally, Fisher was ordered to provide more information about her discrimination claim and a schedule of loss related to it by 17 December 2020.
She did not comply with the court orders. She was also required to give mutual disclosure of all documents which she wanted to rely on at the main hearing by 29 January 2021, which she failed to do.
In contrast, the judge said that Novia complied with all orders made by the tribunal.
Costs
The judge stated: “I have seen a schedule of the costs claimed by the respondent which was sent in advance of this hearing to the claimant.
“The costs have been claimed at the hourly rate of £300 ($413, €350) per hour for work undertaken by a partner; and £200 per hour for work undertaken by an assistant solicitor, plus VAT.
“I find that to be a reasonable rate, and it is commensurate with other firms of solicitors in the vicinity of Bath. The total costs claimed amounted to £7,140.00 plus VAT, at 20%. However, some of that in my judgment was an overestimation as to the amount of work to be undertaken at this hearing today.
“Nonetheless, I am satisfied that the respondent’s [Novia] solicitors have been engaged for nearly 30 hours in the defence of this claim, and that the respondent has discharged interim accounts which have been submitted by the respondent’s solicitors so as to meet the indemnity principle.
“The respondent is registered for VAT and will be able to reclaim this, and for this reason the claimant is not ordered to pay any VAT.
“I have no information as to the claimant’s means, but that is because the claimant failed to comply with the tribunal order to attend this hearing so that she could be cross examined on this matter.”
As a result, Fisher was ordered to pay £6,540 to cover Novia’s legal expenses.
International Adviser contacted Novia Financial but the firm declined to comment on the case.
