EAT The Employment Tribunal erred in law by erroneously placing the burden on the Claimant to satisfy it that costs should not be ordered under Rule 76, and dealt with this question before considering whether the Respondent had satisfied it that there was unreasonable conduct of some kind within Rule 76 to trigger the costs jurisdiction. The case was remitted to the same Tribunal to consider the whole picture and exercise its broad discretion as to whether a costs order is appropriate in all the circumstances of the case, and having regard to all relevant factors to be weighed fairly in the balance.
Simler J P DBE
 UKEAT 0141 – 17 – 1212
England and Wales
Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.605324