Eweida v British Airways Plc

Eweida v British Airways Plc

A protective costs order cannot be made in private law litigation such as this employment dispute. Even if the court had jurisdiction, the appellant's significant private interest would preclude such an order. A costs-capping order is also not justified because any risk of disproportionate costs can be addressed by costs assessment, not by a pre-emptive cap.

Parties
Appellant: Nadia Eweida; Respondent: British Airways PLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 October 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Protective Costs Order and Costs Capping Order
Outcome
Application for protective costs order and costs-capping order dismissed; previous order discharged.
Legal Topics
Protective Costs Orders, Costs Capping Orders, Indirect Discrimination, Religious Discrimination, Costs in Civil Litigation
Civil Procedure Employment Law Protective Costs Orders Costs Capping Orders Indirect Discrimination Religious Discrimination Costs in Civil Litigation

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

Parties

Nadia Eweida

Appellant

British Airways PLC

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Protective Costs Order and Costs Capping Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a protective costs order (PCO) or costs-capping order (CCO) can be made in private law employment litigation
  2. 2 Whether the appellant's liability for the respondent's costs should be limited or capped in the appeal

Ratio Decidendi

A protective costs order cannot be made in private law litigation such as this employment dispute. Even if the court had jurisdiction, the appellant's significant private interest would preclude such an order. A costs-capping order is also not justified because any risk of disproportionate costs can be addressed by costs assessment, not by a pre-emptive cap.

Court Disposition

Application for protective costs order and costs-capping order dismissed; previous order discharged.

Orders

  • No order limiting the appellant's liability for the respondent's costs.