header-logo header-logo

07 October 2010 / Rad Kohanzad
Issue: 7436 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Costs
printer mail-detail

End of the no costs rule?

Rad Kohanzad reports on the upward trend to award costs in employment tribunals

Nicholson Highlandwear v Nicholson UKEATS/0058/09 is the latest in a trilogy of judgments that appear to indicate a worrying trend towards the awarding of costs in employment tribunals.

The history of this series of Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) decisions starts with the case of Daleside Nursing Home v Mathew UKEAT/0519/08; a case which sent a few ripples through the employment law community last year. In Daleside, at the heart of the claim was the contention that the respondent had called the claimant a black bitch. The tribunal found that that was not said, dismissed her discrimination claim, but refused an application for costs.

The EAT held that the fact that the central allegation was a lie necessarily involved a finding by the tribunal that it was a deliberate and cynical lie, which amounted to unreasonable behaviour. The EAT held that the failure to award costs was in

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

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Martin Livingston joins Ogier in Cayman to strengthen regulatory support

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan announces 47 summer promotions across UK offices

NEWS
Consultant-led law firms should prepare for closer regulatory attention as oversight evolves
Artificial intelligence may draft workplace grievances, but employers cannot treat them any differently from conventional complaints
From dishonest claimants to judicial promotions and procedural skirmishes, the latest legal developments offer plenty for litigators to digest
Fresh guidance is set to influence how courts decide whether hearings take place online or in person
County Court judges remain divided over whether landlords can lawfully force entry to carry out essential safety inspections after tenants ignore access injunctions
back-to-top-scroll