EAT Practice and Procedure : Costs – Tribunal orders that Appellant should pay Respondents one-third of their costs (estimated prior to assessment at andpound;260,000) on the basis that the claim was misconceived from the start.
Held, dismissing the appeal, that there was no error of law in the Tribunal’s approach – In particular, it was not wrong in principle to make a costs order even though no deposit order had been made and the Respondents had made a substantial offer of settlement (on an avowedly ‘commercial’ basis) – Nor was it wrong in principle to make an award which the Appellant could not in her present financial circumstances afford to pay where the Tribunal had formed the view that she might be able to meet it in due course (Arrowsmith v Nottingham Trent University [2012] ICR 159 applied).
Underhill J
[2013] UKEAT 0533 – 12 – 0606
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Cartiers Superfoods Ltd v Laws EAT 1978
The EAT considered whether the claimant had acted frivolously under the Rules which referred to awarding costs where a party had acted frivolously or vexatiously, and the Employment Appeal Tribunal took account of pre-proceedings conduct.
Cited – Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council v Yerrakalva CA 3-Nov-2011
The claimant had issued claims in discrimination. She withdrew the claim, but still had a costs order made against her. She appealed and succeeded, and the Council now sought re-instatement of the costs order.
Held: The Court made clear the . .
Cited – Scott v Inland Revenue CA 2-Apr-2004
The employee had claimed damages for unfair dismissal. The Revenue had subsequently changed its policy on retirement, but did not disclose this to the claimant. The change would have altered the calculation of the damages.
Held: A calculation . .
Cited – Daleside Nursing Home Ltd v Mathew EAT 18-Feb-2009
EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Costs
Where at the heart of a claim is an explicit lie alleging racial abuse, the Employment Tribunal was in error failing to find that the Claimant acted unreasonably in . .
Cited – McDougall v Richmond Adult Community College EAT 13-Jul-2007
EAT Disability discrimination – Disability
Compulsory admission of a patient under the Mental Health Act is not automatically a disability under the DDA 1995. In the circumstances of this case the severity . .
Cited – Yerrakalva v Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council and Another EAT 8-Dec-2010
EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Costs
Discrimination claim withdrawn – Judge awards Rs 100% of their costs, not on the basis that the claim had been misconceived or unreasonably pursued from the start but . .
See Also – Vaughan v London Borough of Lewisham and Others EAT 1-Feb-2013
EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Admissibility of Evidence
In support of a discrimination claim the Claimant sought permission to adduce in evidence 39 hours’ worth of covert recordings which she had made of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.510273