header-logo header-logo

11 May 2012 / Michael Salter , Chris Bryden
Issue: 7513 / Categories: Features , Tribunals , Costs , Employment
printer mail-detail

Recovery position

Chris Bryden & Michael Salter consider tactics for the recovery of costs in employment cases

The award of costs is governed by r 40 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure, which provide a discretion to award costs where “the paying party has in bringing the proceedings, or he or his representative has in conducting the proceedings, acted vexatiously, abusively, disruptively or otherwise unreasonably, or the bringing or conducting of the proceedings by the paying party has been misconceived”. The rule is widely drawn and, since its amendment on 6 April 2012, allows a tribunal to award up to £20,000 of costs, to award such sum as the parties agree, or to send the costs to the county court to be assessed if the likely sum is higher than the upper limit it is allowed to award. By r 41(2), the tribunal may (but does not have to) have regard to the paying party’s “ability to pay”, both in determining the principle, and the quantum of a costs award. According to the

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