header-logo header-logo

23 September 2016
Issue: 7715 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Employment

Isteed v Redbridge London Borough Council UKEAT/0442/14/DA, [2016] All ER (D) 189 (Jul)

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) allowed the employee’s appeal against a wasted costs order made against his solicitors following the dismissal of claims of unfair dismissal and unlawful age discrimination. The EAT held that the jurisdiction to make a wasted costs order extended only to impugned conduct that had caused a waste of costs and only to the extent of such wasted costs, demonstration of a causal link being essential. Those findings had not been implicit in the particular circumstances and the employment tribunal had erred in failing adequately to deal with causation and the justice of such an order. Further, there had been procedural unfairness and apparent bias and the employment judge should have recused himself.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Winckworth Sherwood—David Fendt

Winckworth Sherwood—David Fendt

Restructuring and insolvency practice strengthened by partner hire

Gateley Legal—Billy Poulter & Shay Moore

Gateley Legal—Billy Poulter & Shay Moore

North West residential development team welcomes partner and associate

Burgess Mee—Victoria Sterritt

Burgess Mee—Victoria Sterritt

Family law boutique expands London team with legal director hire

NEWS
Some employment law controversies never disappear—they merely lie dormant
Artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming legal practice, but its successful adoption depends as much on culture as technology
The fallout from Lord Mandelson’s appointment and dismissal as UK ambassador to Washington raises profound questions about constitutional governance, accountability and political appointments
Pastries may be in the firing line while kebabs escape scrutiny, but the reality is far more nuanced
The Supreme Court’s decision in Dillon highlights a central tension in modern public law: rights may be recognised without being fully realised
back-to-top-scroll