EAT Practice and Procedure : Costs – It was argued by the Appellant that, by virtue of the definition of ‘costs’ in rule 38(3) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2004, a receiving party who employed a qualified in-house legal representative was unable to recover costs in respect of the time spent by that representative, since it did not fall within the words ‘fees, charges, disbursements or expenses incurred by or on behalf of a party”. It was also argued that the Employment Judge had not properly addressed the question whether it was proportionate to award the whole of the costs.
Held: appeal dismissed. It had long been the position that such costs were recoverable: see Wiggins Alloys Ltd v Jenkins [1981] IRLR 275. The 2004 Rules did not change the position. The words in question were sufficiently wide to enable an employer to recover costs in respect of time spent by a qualified in-house representative. The Employment Judge had properly addressed the question whether it was proportionate to award the whole of the costs.
David Richardson HHJ
[2014] UKEAT 0488 – 13 – 1606
Bailii
England and Wales
Employment
Updated: 20 December 2021; Ref: scu.536388