WorkRep Free Advice - Protective Costs Order - we represent at employment tribunal

Costs News

www.workrep.co.uk

	Home
Pre-trial publicity may affect the possibility of costs being awarded against a claimant in the EAT. Iteshi v Office of Water Services (Ofwat) [2011] UKEAT 0178_11_2209	3/12/11
Costs are compensatory not punitive and reflect the "effect" of the conduct in question" Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council v Yerrakalva [2011] EWCA Civ 1255	30/11/11
Unheard and contested matters dismissed at a pre-hearing should not be the subject of a costs award Dean & Dean (a firm) & Ors v Dionissiou -Moussaoui (Rev 1) [2011] EWCA Civ 1332	29/11/11
Mere suspicion that a representative was acting for profit was not enough for imposing wasted costs Jackson v Cambridgeshire County Council & Ors (Practice and Procedure : Costs) [2011] UKEAT 0402_09_0806	11/06/11
Failing to consider a reasonable offer of settlement or to make a counter offer can lead to an employment tribunal making a costs order. G4S Services v Rondeau [2009] UKEAT 0207/09/DA	18/02/11
The "nature, gravity and effect" of misconduct must be taken into account when deciding whether to make (and if so the amount of) a costs award Yerrakalva v. Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council & Anor [2010] UKEAT 0231_10_0812	19/12/10
Those seeking to profit out of the discrimination legislation will face costs Berry v. Recruitment Revolution [2010] UKEAT 0190_10_0610	4/12/10
Where an employer appeals an employment tribunal decision in a court the claimant will not be at risk of having to pay costs if he loses St Albans Girls' School & Anor v Neary [2009] EWCA Civ 1214	15/12/09
A Protective Costs Order (PCO)in the Court of Appeal is only available in public litigation, not for employees seeking personal benefit Eweida v British Airways Plc [2009] EWCA Civ 1025	28/10/09
Lies result in costs awards(breaching confidentiality in a compromise agreement) Dunedin Housing Association Ltd v. Donaldson - UKEAT [2009] 0014_09_0807	01/09/09
In HARROGATE NHS TRUST v MOCKFORD - EAT 2009when a 'hopeless' strikeout attempt by the respondent failed, limited costs were awarded by the ET to the claimant. The EAT decided that it was illogical to only award costs for the claimant's barrister (counsel) but not his lawyer who had prepared the defence to a strikeout attempt by the respondent. The respondent had been previously been warned by an ET judge of the risk of costs in calling for a pre-hearing to strike out the claiman'ts case. The case transcript can be found: here	10 / 06 / 2009
From time to time we need to repeat that a claimant should never be tempted to make up allegations or even gild the lily. One lie can not only ruin your otherwise good case but also land you in deep water. In Daleside Nursing Home v Mathew - EAT 2009 the EAT found that where the central allegation in a discrimination claim is false, such 'unreasonable behaviour'should inevitably lead to costs being awarded.	19 / 05 / 2009
Salford university fails in its costs action against Dr Moran	29 / 04 / 2007
The High Costs Of Justice	31 / 03 / 2007
Employers who threaten workers with costs shall pay the costs.	2006
© Workrep 2010 All rights reserved Disclaimer: articles and information published by WorkRep are intended for general information purposes only. No representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy or reliability of such information are made.