EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Costs
Where at the heart of a claim is an explicit lie alleging racial abuse, the Employment Tribunal was in error failing to find that the Claimant acted unreasonably in bringing or conducting the claim and should have made an order for costs against her.
Wilkie J said: ‘Where at the heart of a claim is an explicit lie alleging racial abuse, the employment tribunal was in error in failing to find that the claimant acted unreasonably in bringing or conducting her claim and should have made an order for costs against her.’
 UKEAT 0519 – 08 – 1802
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Discrimination claim withdrawn – Judge awards Rs 100% of their costs, not on the basis that the claim had been misconceived or unreasonably pursued from the start but .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 – Arrowsmith v Nottingham Trent University EAT 12-Jul-2010
EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
The Employment Tribunal did not err in refusing at a review hearing to vary its decision. The new evidence would not . .
Cited – Vaughan v London Borough of Lewisham and Others (Practice and Procedure : Costs) EAT 6-Jun-2013
EAT Practice and Procedure : Costs – Tribunal orders that Appellant should pay Respondents one-third of their costs (estimated prior to assessment at andpound;260,000) on the basis that the claim was misconceived . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.341246