FDA & Ors v U Bhardwaj

FDA & Ors v U Bhardwaj

The Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed both the appeals and cross-appeal, holding that the Employment Judge Heap was entitled to exercise discretion not to award costs against Ms Bhardwaj, even where claims were found to be misconceived or brought in bad faith, due to her reliance on specialist legal advice and the fact-specific nature of costs decisions. The Privilege Costs order against Ms Bhardwaj was upheld as justified by her unreasonable conduct in raising and abandoning a privilege claim that disrupted proceedings.

Parties
Appellant: FDA; Appellant: Ann Crighton; Appellant: Stuart Sampson; Appellant: Paula O’Toole; Appellant: Paul Whiteman; Appellant: Sue Gethin; Respondent: MS U Bhardwaj
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 July 2022
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Costs Orders
Outcome
Appeals and cross-appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Costs Orders, Unreasonable Conduct, Legal Advice, Proportionality, Recusal, Privilege, Victimisation, Race Discrimination
Employment Law Civil Procedure Costs Orders Unreasonable Conduct Legal Advice Proportionality Recusal Privilege +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

FDA

Appellant

Ann Crighton

Appellant

Stuart Sampson

Appellant

Paula O’Toole

Appellant

Paul Whiteman

Appellant

Sue Gethin

Appellant

MS U Bhardwaj

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Costs Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs orders should be made against the respondent for claims found to be misconceived or brought in bad faith
  2. 2 Whether favourable legal advice mitigates against costs orders
  3. 3 Whether issue-based costs orders are appropriate in multi-issue cases

Ratio Decidendi

The Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed both the appeals and cross-appeal, holding that the Employment Judge Heap was entitled to exercise discretion not to award costs against Ms Bhardwaj, even where claims were found to be misconceived or brought in bad faith, due to her reliance on specialist legal advice and the fact-specific nature of costs decisions. The Privilege Costs order against Ms Bhardwaj was upheld as justified by her unreasonable conduct in raising and abandoning a privilege claim that disrupted proceedings.

Court Disposition

Appeals and cross-appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No costs orders made in respect of Tayler Costs, Recusal Costs, Disclosure Costs, or Extension of Time Costs
  • Privilege Costs order against Ms Bhardwaj upheld