Sivanandan v Independent Office for Police Conduct & Anor

Sivanandan v Independent Office for Police Conduct & Anor

An unless order under rule 38 can apply to a costs application as 'part of' a claim or response. Relief from sanction was properly granted under rule 38(2) as the delay was minimal, justified, and caused no prejudice. The appellant had a fair opportunity to make written representations. The tribunal considered all relevant matters and applied the correct legal principles. There was no apparent bias in the reconsideration decision.

Parties
Appellant: Ms N Sivanandan; First Respondent: Independent Office for Police Conduct; Second Respondent: Penna PLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 January 2025
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal Tribunal / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Relief From Sanction, Unless Order, Costs Application, Tribunal Procedure, Reconsideration, Bias Allegation
Employment Law Civil Procedure Relief From Sanction Unless Order Costs Application Tribunal Procedure Reconsideration Bias Allegation

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ms N Sivanandan

Appellant

Independent Office for Police Conduct

First Respondent

Penna PLC

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal Tribunal / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an unless order under rule 38 can apply to a costs application
  2. 2 Whether relief from sanction was properly granted under rule 38(2)
  3. 3 Whether the appellant had a fair opportunity to be heard

Ratio Decidendi

An unless order under rule 38 can apply to a costs application as 'part of' a claim or response. Relief from sanction was properly granted under rule 38(2) as the delay was minimal, justified, and caused no prejudice. The appellant had a fair opportunity to make written representations. The tribunal considered all relevant matters and applied the correct legal principles. There was no apparent bias in the reconsideration decision.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Penna's costs application remains live before the tribunal
  • The fate of the deposit is to be determined by the tribunal