header-logo header-logo

End of the no costs rule?

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

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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll