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: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts

An engagement ring may symbolise romance, but the courts remain decidedly practical about who keeps it after a split, writes Mark Pawlowski, barrister and professor emeritus of property law at the University of Greenwich, in this week's NLJ

Medical reporting organisation fees have become ‘the final battleground’ in modern costs litigation, says Kris Kilsby, costs lawyer at Peak Costs and council member of the Association of Costs Lawyers, in this week's NLJ
back-to-top-scroll