Employment tribunal orders barrister to pay £6,800 in wasted costs after he conducted hearing from two trains in Germany
An employment tribunal has ordered barrister Michael Engelhardt-Sprack to pay £6,800 in wasted costs (costs thrown away due to a party's or lawyer's conduct, rather than the merits of the case) after he attempted to conduct a remote final hearing from two different trains in Germany. The tribunal, presided over by Employment Judge Wedderspoon, found that conducting proceedings in this way was 'totally inappropriate and unprofessional' and constituted a breach of presidential guidance on employment tribunals governing remote appearances. The barrister had been granted permission to appear remotely on the first day of the final hearing, originally listed for May 2025, due to childcare commitments and the fact that he lives in Germany but practises in the UK. The first day was intended for housekeeping including a contested disclosure application. He initially failed to appear, then joined via video link from a train with audible background noise and passengers' conversations. When asked to find a quiet environment, he boarded a second train rather than waiting at a station. The case was postponed to the following day, when the barrister appeared in person in Birmingham. He subsequently apologised in writing and explained that unavailability of childcare had disrupted his planned journey. The wasted costs of the second respondent were covered by the first respondent under a commercial agreement between them.
Why this matters
The wasted costs order is a pointed reminder that the expansion of remote hearings since 2020 has not altered advocates' professional obligations to prepare for and conduct hearings in appropriate conditions. Presidential guidance exists precisely to set minimum standards for remote appearances, and this decision confirms that tribunals will use existing costs powers to sanction practitioners whose conduct wastes court time, regardless of the logistical explanation offered. The case also has practical significance for the growing number of internationally mobile barristers who practise in England and Wales while living abroad, for whom travel disruption and childcare pressures create genuine professional risk if contingency planning is inadequate.
On the Ground
Costs lawyers and litigation teams will note that the CPR 44 conduct provisions, referenced in recent commentary on the costs jurisdiction, give courts and tribunals meaningful discretion to penalise procedurally irresponsible conduct without waiting for a final costs assessment. Solicitors instructing barristers for remote hearings will need to review their client care and retainer documentation to ensure responsibility for technical and logistical preparation is clearly allocated. A trainee on a contentious matter would assist with preparing court filing checklists, reviewing guidance documents ahead of remote hearings, and drafting chronologies of procedural history that would be essential in any subsequent wasted costs application.
Interview prep
Question you might get
“On what basis can a court or tribunal order wasted costs against a legal representative rather than a party, and what conduct does this case illustrate?”
Sign up free to see the full answer
A model answer you can lift into an interview — how to frame this story for a partner.
Sign up freeMy notes
saved