casqueiroEAT2012
EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Costs
Unlike for ‘ordinary costs’ under Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2004 rule 41(1)(c), there is no power to refer wasted costs ordered under rule 48 to be assessed in the County Court. Further, the Employment Judge failed to consider, applying Ridehalgh v Horsefield [1994] Ch 205, which costs or what part of the costs schedule had been caused by the unreasonable conduct of the Appellant and whether it was just to order him to pay costs. Appeal allowed. Application for a wasted costs order remitted to a different Employment Judge.
Slade DBE J
[2012] UKEAT 0085 – 12 – 1406
Bailii
Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2004 41(1)(c)
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Ridehalgh v Horsefield; Allen v Unigate Dairies Ltd CA 26-Jan-1994
Guidance for Wasted Costs Orders
Guidance was given on the circumstances required for the making of wasted costs orders against legal advisers. A judge invited to make an order arising out of an advocate’s conduct of court proceedings must make full allowance for the fact that an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment, Costs
Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.463761
