header-logo header-logo

18 October 2013 / Charles Pigott
Issue: 7580 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail

Record breakers

istock_000009467800medium

 Charles Pigott explains how, in certain circumstances, costs awards are undeniably on the up

Employment tribunals’ general discretionary power to award costs has not substantially changed in recent years. Both the 2004 rules of procedure, and the 2013 rules which replaced them in July 2013, broadly speaking impose the same test. To be exposed to the risk of a costs order the paying party must either have conducted the proceedings unreasonably, or have brought or defended proceedings with no reasonable prospects of success. Since 2004, tribunals have had the power to consider the ability to pay, and will invariably do so where a substantial order for costs is being considered.

What has changed is the value of costs orders a tribunal may make without referring them to the county court for detailed assessment. For many years the limit stood at £10,000, but was increased to £20,000 in April 2012. In consultation about the 2013 rules, the government proposed to remove the limit entirely, but in the end this idea has not been implemented—at least for

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

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Regional law firm expands employment team with partner and senior associate hires

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Nottinghamtrusts, estates and tax team welcomes two senior associates

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
Holiday lets may promise easy returns, but restrictive covenants can swiftly scupper plans. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Francis of Serle Court recounts how covenants limiting use to a ‘private dwelling house’ or ‘private residence’ have repeatedly defeated short-term letting schemes
Artificial intelligence (AI) is already embedded in the civil courts, but regulation lags behind practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ben Roe of Baker McKenzie charts a landscape where AI assists with transcription, case management and document handling, yet raises acute concerns over evidence, advocacy and even judgment-writing
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
From cat fouling to Part 36 brinkmanship, the latest 'Civil way' round-up is a reminder that procedural skirmishes can have sharp teeth. NLJ columnist Stephen Gold ranges across recent decisions with his customary wit
back-to-top-scroll