Oni v NHS Leicester City: EAT 12 Sep 2012


The Employment Tribunal should have recused itself from hearing an application for costs, given opinions which it expressed when giving reasons for deciding the case against the Claimant. A Tribunal dealing with the question of liability can and should express itself fully and properly on that issue, making if called for trenchant findings about credibility, and explaining if necessary a case management decision during the hearing even if this involves expressing views about the reasonableness of the conduct of a party which led to the case management decision in question. A Tribunal should not however reach or express concluded views which really anticipate arguments on the question of costs which have not yet been put before it. Porter v Magill [2002] 2 AC 357, Locabail v Bayfield Properties [2000] QB 451 and R v Oshungbure [2005] EWCA Crim 709 considered.
The Employment Tribunal’s finding that the Claimant had means to pay an order for costs (anticipated to be very substantial in amount) could not stand in the absence of proper consideration of her means when the Claimant had asserted she was of limited means. (Suggestion that Tribunals may consider the use of County Court form EX 140 where directions are given in respect of applications for costs orders.)

David Richardson J
[2012] UKEAT 0144 – 12 – 1209
England and Wales
CitedOshungbure and Another, Regina v CACD 10-Mar-2005
The defendant appealed against a confiscation order, saying that the judge having previously expressed strong contrary views of the defendant, should have recused himself from the application, because of the appearance of bias. The judge had . .
CitedLocabail (UK) Ltd, Regina v Bayfield Properties Ltd CA 17-Nov-1999
Adverse Comments by Judge Need not be Show of Bias
In five cases, leave to appeal was sought on the basis that a party had been refused disqualification of judges on grounds of bias. The court considered the circumstances under which a fear of bias in a court may prove to be well founded: ‘The mere . .
CitedPorter and Weeks v Magill HL 13-Dec-2001
Councillors Liable for Unlawful Purposes Use
The defendant local councillors were accused of having sold rather than let council houses in order to encourage an electorate which would be more likely to be supportive of their political party. They had been advised that the policy would be . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Costs

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.464254