Scott v Russell

Scott v Russell

The Employment Tribunal and Employment Appeal Tribunal did not err in law or act perversely in awarding costs against the appellant. The appellant's claims were properly struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success, and his conduct was found to be vexatious and unreasonable. The tribunals identified the relevant unreasonable conduct and its effect, and a broad brush approach to costs was justified. The EAT was also entitled to award costs for the misconceived appeal against the Registrar's refusal to admit fresh evidence.

Parties
Appellant: John Scott; Respondent: Sir Bob Russell, MP
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 November 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal (costs Orders)
Outcome
permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Costs Orders, Unfair Dismissal, Protected Disclosure, Sex Discrimination, Breach of Contract, Litigant in Person, Appeal Procedure
Employment Law Civil Procedure Costs Orders Unfair Dismissal Protected Disclosure Sex Discrimination Breach of Contract Litigant in Person +1 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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Scott

Appellant

Sir Bob Russell, MP

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal (costs Orders)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Employment Tribunal and Employment Appeal Tribunal erred in law or acted perversely in awarding costs against the appellant for bringing and pursuing claims of sex discrimination, protected disclosure, and breach of contract.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant's conduct was properly characterised as vexatious, abusive, or unreasonable to justify costs orders.
  3. 3 Whether the EAT erred in awarding costs for the appeal against the Registrar's refusal to admit fresh evidence.

Ratio Decidendi

The Employment Tribunal and Employment Appeal Tribunal did not err in law or act perversely in awarding costs against the appellant. The appellant's claims were properly struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success, and his conduct was found to be vexatious and unreasonable. The tribunals identified the relevant unreasonable conduct and its effect, and a broad brush approach to costs was justified. The EAT was also entitled to award costs for the misconceived appeal against the Registrar's refusal to admit fresh evidence.

Court Disposition

permission to appeal refused