peat_birmEAT2012
EAT Practice and Procedure : Costs
Applications for costs followed the dismissal of complaints of unfair dismissal by ten test Claimants who were employees of R. R sought to implement a Single Status Agreement and invited its employees to accept new terms and conditions of employment. As refused to do so, and were then dismissed but re-engaged on new terms. They were represented throughout by their trade union and there had been extensive collective consultation. The issue at the liability hearing was as to the need for individual consultation. As continued with their claims after receipt of a costs warning letter.
The ET awarded costs against As on two bases: first, that they acted unreasonably in the conduct of the case by pursuing it after receipt of a costs warning letter until the end of the trial; and second, their claims so far as they asserted that events subsequent to the termination of their employment were relevant were misconceived. They were ordered to pay R’s costs occasioned by that assertion, so far as such costs were not included in those awarded on the first basis.
Held, dismissing the appeal:
(1) As acted unreasonably by failing to engage with R’s costs warning letter, which would have led them to an earlier assessment of the merits of their claims. It was not necessary for R to establish that the claims were misconceived.
(2) The ET did not err in law in concluding that all matters post-dismissal were irrelevant to the issue of fairness. There was no basis on which the ET could depart from the principle established by the House of Lords in Devis v Atkins [1977] AC 91 and West Midlands Co-Operative Society v Tipton [1986] ICR 192.
Supperstone J
[2012] UKEAT 0503 – 11 – 1004
Bailii
England and Wales
Employment, Costs
Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.452509