The applicant had complained of disability discrimination, and failed. He had been ordered to pay a sum towards the costs of the respondent. He appealed that order. He had previously issued a complaint, and lost that complaint, being warned then of the possibility of such an order. This second complaint was of victimisation, but the decision makers knew nothing of his first complaint. His complaint was dismissed. The tribunal recognised the unreasonableness of his complaint, and the substantial cost to the respondent, and awarded pounds 250 costs. The respondent cross appealed, saying that the award should not have been so limited.
Held: In making that decision the tribunal had taken into account a suggestion that the appellant had had all relevant evidence available to him from an early stage. The nature of victimisation complaints is that they are difficult to prove, and it may often be proper for a complainant to rely upon the hope of cross examination.
EAT Procedural Issues – Employment Tribunal.
Judges:
Mrs Recorder Cox QC
Citations:
EAT/417/00, [2001] UKEAT 417 – 00 – 0805
Links:
Statutes:
Employment Tribunals Constitution and Procedure Regulations 1993 Sch 1 r 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Discrimination, Employment, Costs
Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.203899