EAT Practice and Procedure: Costs – The Tribunal erred in law in assuming that once it had been established that there was unreasonable conduct in persisting with proceedings following a deposit order, a costs order should follow subject only to considering means. Even where unreasonable conduct has been found, a Tribunal has discretion as to whether costs should be awarded, and if so, in what amount, and must consider all relevant circumstances in exercising that discretion.
The question whether costs should be awarded and if so in what amount involved the exercise of discretion and, inherently therefore, a range of possible outcomes. There was not ‘only one outcome’ and accordingly the Employment Appeal Tribunal had no jurisdiction to determine this issue absent agreement from both parties.
Although unusual, given a number of matters referred to in the Tribunal’s Reasons that led to the conclusion that there was insufficient confidence that the Tribunal was not so committed to its decision that a rethink was likely, the matter would be remitted to a differently constituted Tribunal.
Simler J
[2015] UKEAT 0371 – 14 – 1702
Bailii
England and Wales
Employment
Updated: 29 December 2021; Ref: scu.545170
