Hines v Brinks Ireland Ltd [2013] NIIT 01594_11IT (06 September 2013)

Hines v Brinks Ireland Ltd [2013] NIIT 01594_11IT (06 September 2013)

The respondent's refusal of discovery was based on respectable legal argument regarding privilege, not all documents were ordered to be discovered, and there was no evidence of vexatious, abusive, disruptive, or unreasonable conduct; costs are not awarded as they are the exception in employment tribunals.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2013] NIIT 01594_11IT
Parties
Claimant: Adrian Hines; Respondent: Brinks Ireland Ltd
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
28 August 2013
Procedural Posture
Industrial Tribunal / Costs Application Following Case Management Discussion
Outcome
Application for costs refused
Legal Topics
Costs in Employment Tribunals, Discovery of Legal Advice, Legal Professional Privilege
Employment Law Costs in Employment Tribunals Discovery of Legal Advice Legal Professional Privilege

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Adrian Hines

Claimant

Brinks Ireland Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Industrial Tribunal / Costs Application Following Case Management Discussion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant is entitled to an award of costs for CMD regarding discovery of legal advice
  2. 2 Whether respondent's refusal of discovery was vexatious, abusive, disruptive, or unreasonable

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent's refusal of discovery was based on respectable legal argument regarding privilege, not all documents were ordered to be discovered, and there was no evidence of vexatious, abusive, disruptive, or unreasonable conduct; costs are not awarded as they are the exception in employment tribunals.

Court Disposition

Application for costs refused

Orders

  • No award of costs in respect of the Case Management Discussion convened on 9 August 2013