This document outlines the rules and procedures for preparation time orders and wasted cost orders in employment tribunals. It summarizes the three-stage test for wasted cost orders from Ridehalgh v Horsefield. It then provides definitions from Rules 74-76 and explains how the claimant is seeking preparation time orders and wasted cost orders against the respondent under Rules 79-80 based on unreasonable acts and omissions that caused unnecessary costs. Tables are included calculating the requested amounts.

1. PREPARATION TIME ORDER AND WASTED COST ORDER
Page 1 of 9
Gardiner v Exsto UK & ORS
From the authority on wasted cost Ridehalgh v Horsefield & Anor [1994]
EWCA Civ 40 (appendix A)
“The three-stage test when a wasted cost order is contemplated:
(1) Has the legal representative of whom complaint is made acted
unreasonably?
(2) If so, did such conduct cause the applicant to incur unnecessary cost?
(3) If so, is it in all the circumstances just to order the legal representative to
compensate the applicant for the whole or any part of the relevant cost?
In order to assist the tribunal in the application for wasted and other cost it is
ascertained that the applicable rules of “The Employment Tribunals
(Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013” and their application
are as follows.
1) Definitions - Rule 74
i) Case summary and the application of Rule 74
2) When a cost order or a preparation time order may or shall be made -
Rule 76
ii) Case summary and the application of rule 76
3) The amount of a preparation time order - rule 79 & 75
4) When a wasted cost order may be made - rule 80
iii) Case summary and the application of - rules 75, 79 & 80
5) Effect of a wasted cost order - rule 81
6) Procedure – rule 82
7) Clean hands
8) The Public interest
9) Pursuing a hopeless case
10) The acid test
11) Indisputable fact

2. PREPARATION TIME ORDER AND WASTED COST ORDER
Page 2 of 9
1) Definitions
74(1) “Cost” means fees, charges, disbursements or expenses incurred by or on
behalf of the receiving party.
74(2) “Legally represented” means having the assistance of a person …who—
(a) has a right of audience …. of proceedings in ….Senior Courts of
England and Wales, or….. county or magistrates’ courts;
i) Case summary and the application of Rule 74
Gardiner “receiving party”
claimant
V
1) Exsto UK & Ors
2) Peninsula Business Services (representative)
(Outsourced suppliers of human resource and health
safety at work and legal services)
“paying party”
respondent
“The case” as listed
1. Case 1400500/2011
2. Case UKEATPA/1798/11/JOJ
3. Cases1401745, 1401756, 1401811, 1401812, 4109312/2012
4. Case A2 2012/2751
5. Case A2 2012/2752
6. Case UKEATPA/0386/13/LA
7. Compensation
Rule 74(1) “Cost” in “the case” is the expense or otherwise loss incurred by the
claimant.

3. PREPARATION TIME ORDER AND WASTED COST ORDER
Page 3 of 9
2) When a cost order or a preparation time order may or shall be made
76(2) A Tribunal may make such an order where a party has been in breach of
any order or practice direction or where a hearing has been postponed or
adjourned on the application of a party.
ii) Case summary and the application of Rule 76
Rule 76(2) A Tribunal may make such an order where a party has been in
breach of any order or practice direction
The claimant refers the Tribunal to a letter dated 02/07/2013
Rule 76(2) Hearings have been postponed or adjourned on the application of
the respondent.
There are 3 recorded instances where hearings were adjourned or cancelled at
the wish of the respondent.
a) A pre-hearing review scheduled for the 6th
of December 2012
b) A pre-hearing review scheduled for the 21st
of December 2012
c) A hearing for cost scheduled for the 6th
of June 2013

4. PREPARATION TIME ORDER AND WASTED COST ORDER
Page 4 of 9
3) The amount of a preparation time order
79(1) The Tribunal shall decide the number of hours in respect of which a
preparation time order should be made, on the basis of—
(a) information provided by the receiving party on time spent falling within rule
75(2); “A preparation time order is an order that “the paying party” make a
payment to “the receiving party” in respect of the receiving party’s preparation
time while not legally represented. “Preparation time” means time spent
working on the case”. and
(b) the Tribunal’s own assessment of what it considers to be a reasonable and
proportionate amount of time to spend on such preparatory work, with
reference to such matters as the complexity of the proceedings, the number of
witnesses and documentation required.
79(2) The hourly rate is £33 .....
79(3)The amount of a preparation time order shall be the product of the hours
assessed under paragraph (1) and the rate under paragraph (2).
4) When a wasted cost order may be made.
80(1) A Tribunal may make a wasted cost order against a representative in
favour of any party …… where that party has incurred cost—
(a) as a result of any unreasonable act or omission on the part of the
representative.
80(2) “Representative” means a party’s legal or other representative or any
employee of such representative.
80(3) A wasted cost order may be made in favour of a party whether or not
that party is legally represented….
Important note: In the drawing up of the procedures there is a conflict of reasoning, between
preparation time and wasted cost orders. Rules 74 – 78 are in essence the same as rules 80 –
82 save as reference to the parties paying or receiving (claimant, respondent and the
potential legal representatives of both sides) and with the exception, there is no method to
determine the amount of wasted cost (rule 80), for the purpose of expedition it is assumed
that rule 79 should be applied. The claimant reserves the right to appeal rules 74 – 84 .

5. PREPARATION TIME ORDER AND WASTED COST ORDER
Page 5 of 9
iii) Case summary and the application of Rules 75, 79 & 80
It is requested that the Tribunal decide the sum of hours and the cost in
respect of which rule 79(1) preparation time and rule 80(1) wasted cost order
should be made, on the basis of—
Rule 79(1)(a) All information provided by the claimant within Rule 75(2) An
order is requested that respondent make a payment to the claimant in respect
of the claimant’s preparation time of the case. A submission has been made in
respect of part of the case as instructed by the Tribunal 19/06/2013. The
claimant is awaiting instruction in respect of correspondence dated from
19/06/2013 onwards.
And rule 79(1)(b) The Tribunal’s own assessment of what it considers to be a
reasonable and proportionate amount of time spent on such preparatory
work, with reference to the complexity of the proceedings and documentation
of the case.
Rule 80(1) An order is requested that the respondent make payment to the
claimant in respect of the case. Rule 80(1)(b) the Tribunal considers it
unreasonable to expect the claimant to pay the cost Rule 80(1)(a) resulting
from unreasonable acts and omissions on the part of the respondent. (breach
of a duty to the court).
Without going into great detail from the case files it is clear that by issuing or
pursuing proceedings for reasons unconnected with success in the litigation
and pursuing a case known to be dishonest, evading the rules intended to
safeguard the interests of justice, despite
Orchard v South Eastern Electricity Board [1987]… "it must never be forgotten
that it is not for solicitors or counsel to impose a pre-trial screen through which a
litigant must pass before he can put his complaint or defence before the court. No
solicitor or counsel should lend his assistance to a litigant if he is satisfied that the
initiation or further prosecution of a claim ….have become, an abuse of the
process of the court or unjustifiably oppressive."
And knowingly failing to make full disclosure on ex parte application and
knowingly conniving at incomplete disclosure of documents. The respondent
still pursued their case. Does the conduct permit of a reasonable explanation?

6. PREPARATION TIME ORDER AND WASTED COST ORDER
Page 6 of 9
Rule 79(3) The amount of preparation time or wasted cost order shall be the
product of the number of hours assessed, rules 79(1) plus rule 80(1) and
current hourly rate of £33, rule 79(2).
A B
(A+B) x £33
79(2).
Case
Preparation
Time 79(1)
Wasted
cost 80(1)
Loss
79(3)
1 1400500/2011
2 UKEATPA/1798/11/JOJ
3 A2 2012/2751
4 A2 2012/2752
5 1401745/2012
6 1401756/2012 101.45
7 1401811/2012
8 1401812/2012
9 4109312/2012
10 UKEATPA/0386/13/LA
11 Compensation £25,000.00
TOTAL

7. PREPARATION TIME ORDER AND WASTED COST ORDER
Page 7 of 9
5) Effect of a wasted cost order
81 A wasted cost order may order the representative to pay the whole or part
of any wasted cost of the receiving party. The amount to be paid, must in each
case be specified in the order.
6) Procedure
82 A wasted cost order may be made by the Tribunal on its own initiative or on
the application of any party. …….. No such order shall be made unless the
representative has had a reasonable opportunity to make representation ... in
response to the application or proposal. The Tribunal shall inform the
representative’s client in writing of any proceedings under this rule and of any
order made against the representative.

8. PREPARATION TIME ORDER AND WASTED COST ORDER
Page 8 of 9
7) Clean Hands
It has been stated by the respondent that “the claimant does not make this
wasted cost application with clean hands”
The case Ridehalgh v Horsefield & Anor [1994] EWCA Civ 40 is a good starting
point for the clean hands doctrine as an authority on the conduct of legal
representatives it outlines all of the applicable conduct required to keep a
clean pair of hands.
Despite judgments against the claimant founded upon the alleged
unreasonable conduct of the respondent. The claimant has not withdrawn
from the process as can be seen from rule 76(2) this would be unreasonable.
The claimant remains optimistic that at some stage the Tribunal will accept
that it made a mistake at the hearing 7-8th
September 2011. The immunity
afforded to legal representatives and judges should be extended to the
claimant
Immunity: Party’s should be free to conduct a case fearlessly, independently and
without looking over their shoulders; the need for finality, so that cases are not
endlessly re-litigated with the risk of inconsistent decisions; the duty of all to the
administration of justice; the general immunity accorded to those taking part in
proceedings; Only if a party’s conduct is unreasonable they are liable to a wasted
cost order any judge who is invited to make or contemplates making an order
arising out of a parties conduct of proceedings must make full allowance for the
fact that any party in an argument, often has to make decisions quickly or under
pressure, ignorant of the manoeuvring of their opposition. Mistakes will
inevitably be made, things done which the outcome shows to have been unwise.
It is only when, with all allowances made, a party’s conduct of proceedings is
quite plainly unjustifiable that it can be appropriate to make a wasted cost order.
The claimant admits to mistakes and making unwise moves but they were not
unjustifiable there is no mechanism to overturn an incorrect judgment.
Suffering from significant disability, anxiety and depression and with an
impaired equilibrium the claimant has soldiered on in the interests of justice
for all.

9. PREPARATION TIME ORDER AND WASTED COST ORDER
Page 9 of 9
8) The public interest
Clearly affirmed by Act of Parliament, is that party’s to litigation should not be
prejudiced by the unjustifiable conduct of lawyers.
9) Pursuing a hopeless case.
Party’s are not to be held to have acted unreasonably simply because they
pursue a claim or a defence which is doomed to fail.
10) The acid test
Whether the conduct permits of a reasonable explanation? If so, the course
adopted may be regarded as optimistic and as reflecting on the claimants
judgment, but it is not unreasonable.
The claimant claims that with intense scrutiny all of his submissions and
actions will pass the acid test of the courts. The claimant remains optimistic
that Justice will be done.
The criticism that was unjustly levelled at the claimant by the respondent and
endorsed by the tribunal has no basis other than the benefit of doubt. Until
over turned the claimant has to carry this burden.
11) Indisputable facts
a) The claimant under extraordinary circumstances made several
attempts to get a flight home.
b) The claimant did not know or have the number of Mr Baxevanidis, in
any event a message was received and accepted by him in good time.
c) The claimant returned to the UK and work as and when he said he
would.
d) 09/12/10 There was a confrontation – an accident which rendered the
claimant unfit for work.
e) What happened after these events was more unreasonable behaviour
of the respondent.
Yours Faithfully
Douglas Gardiner
14/08/2013