July 31, 2013

Costs awards

The EAT held that the Tribunal had correctly applied the two stage test. Its conclusion that the case was misconceived was impeachable regardless of the fact there had been no deposit orders or observations made by the Tribunal prior to its judgment that the claims appeared weak. The Respondent had offered to settle for £95,000 but this was specifically stated to be for commercial reasons only. It held that the Tribunal was right to award the Respondents one third of their costs even though the Claimant, currently unemployed, would find it difficult to pay and it may take her several years to satisfy the order. Nonetheless the Tribunal was entitled to find that there was a realistic prospect of the Claimant returning to employment and making a payment for costs.

An interesting case which clearly gives no obvious consideration to the issue of whether or not the Claimant has the means to pay, at least not in the summary of the facts.

This legal update is provided for general information purposes only and should not be applied to specific circumstances without prior consultation with us.

For further details on any of the issues covered in this update please contact Gemma Ospedale, Partner in Employment on 020 7583 2222.

Share on:

Your Comments

Leave a comment

Thank you for choosing to leave a comment. Please keep in mind that comments are moderated. Please do not use a spammy keyword or a domain as your name or it will be deleted.