The claimant withdrew his claim in the Employment Tribunal. By then, his employer had incurred very substantial legal costs. He appealed against the order for costs against him.
Held: The tribunal had wrongly asked whether the withdrawal of the case was unreasonable. It should have asked whether the case as a whole was reasonably pursued. It was nevertheless open to the tribunal to find, on the facts, that the proceedings as a whole had been conducted unreasonably.
Mummery LJ stated: ‘The principal of relevance means that the tribunal must have regard to the nature, gravity and effect of the unreasonable conduct as factors relevant to the exercise of the discretion but that is not the same as requiring [the receiving party] to prove that specific unreasonable conduct by [the paying party] caused particular costs to be incurred’.
Judges:
Lord Justice Mummery Lord Justice Thorpe Mr Justice Bennett
Citations:
[2004] EWCA Civ 569, Times 31-May-2004, [2004] EWCA Civ 616, [2004] ICR 1398, [2004] 4 Costs LR 596, [2004] 3 All ER 266, [2004] IRLR 558, [2004] EWHC 90034 (Costs), [2004] ICR 1938
Links:
Statutes:
Employment Tribunal (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2001 14
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – McPherson v BNP Paribas Branch EAT 28-May-2003
EAT Practice and Procedure – Application/Claim. . .
Cited by:
See Also – Mcpherson v BNP Paribas (London Branch) SCCO 13-Jun-2004
. .
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Discrimination claim withdrawn – Judge awards Rs 100% of their costs, not on the basis that the claim had been misconceived or unreasonably pursued from the start but .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 – Cass v Amt-Sybex (Northern Ireland) Ltd NIIT 26-Jan-2011
The decision of the tribunal is that the respondents’ application for costs is refused. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Costs, Employment
Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.197001