EAT The appellant Council had withdrawn its appeal at the last moment. The successful individual respondent in the Employment Appeal Tribunal, had been given assistance by the CRE, and had herself incurred no costs, whereas the CRE, on her behalf, had. As the jurisdiction under the Rule was only that a payor could be obliged to pay costs and expenses ‘incurred by that other party’, it followed upon the respondent having incurred nothing, that she could be paid nothing.
An order for costs by an Industrial Tribunal can only be made in favour of a party, and not for a non-party, such as a solicitor representing one of the parties.
Slynn J said as to the rules: ‘As a matter of construction, the power to order costs or expenses to be paid to ‘any other party’ must be a party to the proceedings. That seems to us clear as a matter of construction of the rule; but in any event is put beyond doubt if one turns to paragraph 19 of Schedule 11 to the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 which is repeating earlier legislation and which refers to the power of this Tribunal to order that costs may be paid to any other ‘party to the proceedings’.
It seems to us here that before we can make an order the local authority shall pay any monies to the Applicant we must be satisfied that she has incurred costs or expenses. The important word is ‘incurred’. Apparently, the position in this particular case is that the Applicant has not incurred any costs or expenses.’
Judges:
Slynn J
Citations:
[1980] ICR 519
Statutes:
Employment Appeal Tribunal Rules 1976 2191), Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Taiwo v Olaigbe and Another EAT 5-Mar-2013
EAT Race Discrimination Direct
Indirect
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
A Tribunal dismissed claims by a Nigerian it found to have been mistreated when she worked for the Respondents as a domestic worker (a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment, Costs
Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.471567
