EAT Practice and Procedure : Costs – The Claimant was ordered to pay a contribution of andpound;500 to the Respondent’s costs when she applied on the day of the PHR for a postponement on grounds known to her much earlier. Her conduct was unreasonable. Applying Barnsley and Dean and Dean the EAT would not overturn this exercise of discretion. Even if the Employment Judge were wrong under rule 40(2) she was unarguably right under rule 40(1) (adjournment) which does not require a pejorative finding. Her application to the EAT to adduce fresh evidence was refused: Ladd v Marshall applied.
Judges:
McMullen QC J
Citations:
[2011] UKEAT 0225 – 11 – 2511
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Employment
Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.450629
