EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Costs
The Claimant claimed direct sex discrimination and victimisation against her employers. The Employment Tribunal decided that all of her complaints were untrue. They subsequently ordered her to pay the Respondent’s costs, principally on the basis that the claim was misconceived i.e. had no reasonable prospect of success. They had concluded that the Claimant had not deliberately lied but that, for whatever reason, her perception of reality was damaged and wholly unreliable.
Held: on the Claimant’s appeal against the award of costs
(1) The ET were entitled in the exercise of their costs discretion to take into account her mental health and her refusal or failure to seek medical help; there was no breach of Article 8; the material had been put before the ET by the Claimant.
(2) The ET were entitled to take into account the fact that the Claimant had not put forward a grievance. Section 207A of the 1992 Act related to a wholly different situation and did not constitute the only circumstances in which failure to put forward a grievance could be relevant.
(3) The fact that the ET had concluded that the Claimant had not deliberately lied did not prevent the ET from considering that the claim had no reasonable prospect of success or that the claim had been reasonably brought and pursued.
Burke J QC
[2012] UKEAT 0523 – 11 – 1903
Bailii
England and Wales
Employment, Costs, Human Rights
Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.462304