EAT The Tribunal had concluded that the claimant’s refusal of an employer’s offer amounted to unreasonable conduct.
Held: Mittig J said: ‘The Employment Appeal Tribunal had not erred in exercising its discretion under Rule 14(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure and making a Costs Order against the applicant on the grounds that part of her claim was seriously misconceived and that her failure to accept the employer’s substantial offer of settlement was unreasonable conduct of the proceedings.’
As to the use of Calderbank offers in employment law proceedings: ‘There is no question of any rule in Calderbank v Calderbank applying to proceedings before the employment tribunal. The principle in Calderbank is that a party to matrimonial proceedings against whom a money claim is made can protect his position as to costs by making an offer of settlement marked without prejudice save as to costs. The offer may not be referred to during the main hearing but may be once judgment is given: if the order made is less favourable than the offer, the court may take the offer into account when considering what if any order for costs to make.’ and ‘There is no doubt, however, that an offer of the Calderbank type is a factor which the employment tribunal can take into account under rule 14.’
Judges:
The Honourable Mr Justice Mitting
Citations:
EAT/281/02, [2003] EAT 0281 – 02 – 1104, [2003] UKEAT 0281 – 02 – 1104, [2003] IRLR 753
Links:
Cited by:
Cited – Raggett v John Lewis Plc EAT 17-Aug-2012
raggett_lewisEAT2012
EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Costs
In determining the amount of costs to be awarded having decided that the bringing of an unfair dismissal claim was misconceived and that a costs order should be made . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment, Costs
Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.185496