EAT Practice and Procedure : Disclosure – Costs – On an application under rule 34A(2A) EAT Rules 1993, as amended, the EAT has a broad discretion to make a costs order in favour of a successful Appellant in the sum of any fee paid under a notice issued by the Lord Chancellor. There was no requirement that the thresholds laid down under r.34A(1) need to have been crossed by a Respondent before such an award was made. Although costs did not simply follow the event in the EAT – and allowing that exceptions might need to be made in particular cases – the introduction of fees had changed the landscape and the general expectation must be that a successful Appellant will be entitled to recover the fees paid from a Respondent that had actively sought to resist the appeal – Portnykh v Nomura International Plc UKEAT/0448/13/LA followed.
Application under r.34A(2A) duly allowed. PCS ordered to pay costs in the sum of andpound;1,600 to Horizon
Eady QC HHJ
[2014] UKEAT 0071 – 14 – 1806, [2014] IRLR 854
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Portnykh v Nomura International Plc EAT 5-Nov-2013
EAT Practice and Procedure : Admissibility of Evidence – The Employment Judge had misdirected herself on the ‘without prejudice’ rule. She had looked only in the correspondence itself for an actual ‘dispute’ and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment, Costs
Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.527201
