header-logo header-logo

Record breakers

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

Hill Dickinson—Paul Matthews, Liz Graham & Sarah Pace

Hill Dickinson—Paul Matthews, Liz Graham & Sarah Pace

Leeds office strengthened with triple partner hire

Clarke Willmott—Oksana Howard

Clarke Willmott—Oksana Howard

Corporate lawyer joins as partner in London office

Pillsbury—Steven James

Pillsbury—Steven James

Firm boosts London IP capability with high-profile technology sector hire

NEWS
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) continues to stir controversy across civil litigation, according to NLJ columnist Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School—AKA ‘The insider’
SRA v Goodwin is a rare disciplinary decision where a solicitor found to have acted dishonestly avoided being struck off, says Clare Hughes-Williams of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) imposed a 12-month suspension instead, citing medical evidence and the absence of harm to clients
In their latest Family Law Brief for NLJ, Ellie Hampson-Jones and Carla Ditz of Stewarts review three key family law rulings, including the latest instalment in the long-running saga of Potanin v Potanina
The Asian International Arbitration Centre’s sweeping reforms through its AIAC Suite of Rules 2026, unveiled at Asia ADR Week, are under examination in this week's NLJ by John (Ching Jack) Choi of Gresham Legal
In this week's issue of NLJ, Yasseen Gailani and Alexander Martin of Quinn Emanuel report on the High Court’s decision in Skatteforvaltningen (SKAT) v Solo Capital Partners LLP & Ors [2025], where Denmark’s tax authority failed to recover £1.4bn in disputed dividend tax refunds
back-to-top-scroll