EAT Practice and Procedure : Costs – Employment Tribunal (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2004 Schedule 1 Rule 40(2) and (3)
Simply because the Employment Tribunal’s costs jurisdiction was engaged, costs did not follow the event: the Tribunal still needed to be satisfied that it would be appropriate to make an award of costs, see Robinson and Another v Hall Gregory Recruitment Ltd UKEAT/0425/13, paragraph 15, and Criddle v Epcot Leisure Ltd [2005] EAT/0275/05.
In this case, it was apparent that the Employment Judge had indeed adopted such a two-stage process and permissibly exercised her discretion to award costs. The first ground of appeal was dismissed.
As to the amount awarded, there was no requirement that a Schedule of Costs had to be served on the paying party and the Tribunal had a broad discretion under the 2004 Rules. That said, it was unclear as to whether the Employment Judge had exercised any independent scrutiny of the sums claimed by the Respondent. If she had done so, the Judgment did not adequately disclose her reasoning in this regard. The appeal on the second ground was therefore allowed and the matter remitted to the same Employment Judge for re-hearing on the question of the amount of the award of costs only.
Eady QC HHJ
[2014] UKEAT 0508 – 13 – 0606
Bailii
England and Wales
Employment
Updated: 20 December 2021; Ref: scu.536387