A woman with aspirations to become a solicitor has received a costs order after her employment tribunal case fell at the first hurdle.
Employment Judge Wright ruled in July that she should strike out the claim made by Maria Pruzhanskaya at the preliminary hearing stage.
Pruzhanskaya had brought an employment claim against three respondents: law firm Maitland Walker where she worked previously, legal recruitment firm Flex Legal and its owner Mishcon de Reya.
Pruzhanskaya had been involved in litigation involving Maitland Walker and Flex Legal over a request to return a laptop loaned to her.
In a reserved costs judgment published this week, Employment Judge Wright did not give details of what the underlying claim was for but said Pruzhanskaya had behaved ‘unreasonably’ in her conduct of proceedings.
All respondents made an application for costs, which was considered on the papers.
The essence of Mishcon de Reya’s application was that Pruzhanskaya had no reasonable prospects of success. Although she was a litigant in person, the firm pointed to her legal experience as a paralegal who had completed the legal practice course and had aspirations to be a solicitor. She had also been involved in litigation in the High Court of her own.
It was submitted the claim against Mishcon was ‘doomed to fail from the outset’ and characterised by ‘hopelessness’, with Pruzhanskaya having ‘bombarded [the firm] with baseless applications’.
The tribunal had been unable to ask Pruzhanskaya about her ability to pay any costs at the hearing and so gave her 14 days to set out her position. After being given more time, no response to the costs application was received for some 11 weeks until the judge’s determination.
The judge noted that the claimant already has a costs order of £65,000 against her in the King’s Bench Division of the High Court. She had earned £17.50 an hour at Maitland Walker.
The judge stressed the tribunal was not a ‘risk-free jurisdiction’. Flex Legal and Maitland Walker were not awarded any costs because their applications were not specific enough, but the claimant was ordered to pay £4,500 towards Mishcon de Reya’s costs.
The judge added that no direct allegation was made against Mishcon to the particulars of complaint. 'The claimant could have withdrawn her claim against [Mishcon], particularly once she received the explanation as to the very limited role [it] had as ultimate owner of... [FlexLegal].’
