EAT Practice and Procedure : Costs – ET Costs Award – ET (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2004 Schedule 1
Appeal from Judgment awarding costs against the Claimant upon the remitted hearing of the Respondent’s application for costs (see previous EAT Judgment in this matter, under UKEAT/0144/12).
When deciding whether the threshold had been crossed for its costs jurisdiction to be engaged, the Employment Tribunal considered that it had been, on the basis that the claims were misconceived.
In determining whether or not bringing the race discrimination case had been misconceived from the outset, the Tribunal needed to understand what that case was. That understanding was not demonstrated by the Employment Tribunal’s reasoning, which was rendered unsafe by the apparently erroneous characterisation of how the Claimant had put her case.
In respect of the unfair dismissal claim, whilst bound by the earlier findings on liability, the Tribunal was required to form its own judgment as to whether the claim had been misconceived. That independent engagement was not apparent from the Employment Tribunal’s reasons.
Disposal
Having due regard to the guidance laid down by the EAT in Sinclair Roche and Temperley and Ors v Heard and Anor [2004] IRLR 763, the costs application was remitted to be considered by a freshly constituted Tribunal, purely looking at the question of whether or not the claims were misconceived (the Respondent not having pursued a cross-appeal against the refusal to find unreasonable conduct). The decision to remit to a freshly constituted Tribunal was for largely pragmatic reasons arising in this case.
Eady QC J
[2014] UKEAT 0133 – 14 – 1408, [2014] UKEAT 0134 – 14 – 1408
Bailii, Bailii
England and Wales
Employment
Updated: 21 December 2021; Ref: scu.536698
