raggett_lewisEAT2012
EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Costs
In determining the amount of costs to be awarded having decided that the bringing of an unfair dismissal claim was misconceived and that a costs order should be made against the Claimant paying party, applying Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council v Yerrakalva [2012] IRLR 78 to the exercise of their discretion as to the amount of costs to be awarded under the Employment Tribunal (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2004 rule 40, an Employment Tribunal should look at the whole picture of what happened in the case and identify what effects the Claimant’s misconceived claim had on the proceedings and associated costs. Applying respectively Barnsley and Kopel v Safeway Stores plc [2003] IRLR 753 the ET can take into account the receiving party’s unreasonable litigation conduct and an unreasonable refusal by the Claimant of a settlement offer. In both cases, findings of fact are needed to support such conclusions. In this case the ET did not err in the assessment of the amount of costs they ordered the Claimant to pay the Respondent save that the Claimant’s appeal from the inclusion of an amount of VAT in such costs succeeded. VAT should not be included in costs ordered to be paid under rule 40 if the receiving party is able to reclaim VAT as input tax. Although the detailed provisions of the CPR do not apply to proceedings before ETs their general principles do (Neary v St Albans Girls’ School [2010] ICR 473 per Smith LJ paragraph 47). Costs are compensatory not punitive. This principle is reflected in paragraph 5.3 of the Costs Practice Direction 5.3.
Award of costs reduced to exclude a sum in respect of VAT.
Slade DBE J
[2012] UKEAT 0082 – 12 – 1708
Bailii
Employment Tribunal (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2004 40
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Kopel v Safeway Stores Plc EAT 11-Apr-2003
EAT The Tribunal had concluded that the claimant’s refusal of an employer’s offer amounted to unreasonable conduct.
Held: Mittig J said: ‘The Employment Appeal Tribunal had not erred in exercising its . .
Cited – Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council v Yerrakalva CA 3-Nov-2011
The claimant had issued claims in discrimination. She withdrew the claim, but still had a costs order made against her. She appealed and succeeded, and the Council now sought re-instatement of the costs order.
Held: The Court made clear the . .
Cited – Yerrakalva v Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council and Another EAT 8-Dec-2010
EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Costs
Discrimination claim withdrawn – Judge awards Rs 100% of their costs, not on the basis that the claim had been misconceived or unreasonably pursued from the start but . .
Cited – St Albans Girls’ School and Another v Neary CA 20-Nov-2009
The amount of costs ordered under rule 41 should be governed by the same general principles as in the civil courts. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment, Costs
Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.463688