header-logo header-logo

23 September 2016
Issue: 7715 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Employment

Isteed v Redbridge London Borough Council UKEAT/0442/14/DA, [2016] All ER (D) 189 (Jul)

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) allowed the employee’s appeal against a wasted costs order made against his solicitors following the dismissal of claims of unfair dismissal and unlawful age discrimination. The EAT held that the jurisdiction to make a wasted costs order extended only to impugned conduct that had caused a waste of costs and only to the extent of such wasted costs, demonstration of a causal link being essential. Those findings had not been implicit in the particular circumstances and the employment tribunal had erred in failing adequately to deal with causation and the justice of such an order. Further, there had been procedural unfairness and apparent bias and the employment judge should have recused himself.

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

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll