The claimant had had mixed success in claims for race discrimination, but appealed orders to pay to the costs of the respondents. She claimed to be impecunious and that that should have been taken into account before deciding whether a costs order should be made against her. Should a costs sanction be available to restrain the vexatious litigant whether poor or not?
Held: The tribunal should look at neither party’s means to decide whether a costs order should be made. The restriction on awards of costs unless for misbehaviour remains an appropriate protection of a litigant, and a tribunal does not have the facility to investigate means. The extension of the rules to allow awards for misbehaviour of representatives supported this view. Earlier case law not having dealt with this point at this level the court was free to make its own choice in the matter.
Judges:
Lord Justice Simon Brown, Lord Justice Chadwick and Mr Justice Charles
Citations:
Times 12-Apr-2002, Gazette 10-May-2002, [2002] Emp LR 940, [2002] ICR 919, [2002] IRLR 414
Links:
Statutes:
Industrial Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 1993 (1993 No 2687) 12
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – M J Benyon and others v David Scadden and others EAT 14-Jun-1999
The tribunal had found that the claimants and their union had pursued their case, even though they recognised the weakness of the case, with the additional intention of persuading their employer to recognise their union, UNISON. Such behaviour was . .
Appeal from – Dr I Kovacs v Queen Mary and Westfield College, the Royal Hospital NHS Trust EAT 1-Dec-2000
EAT Procedural Issues – Employment Tribunal
EAT Procedural Issues – Employment Tribunal. . .
See Also – Kovacs v Queen Mary and Westfield College and Another CA 18-Dec-2001
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment, Costs
Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.168540