Drury v Larne Borough Council [2009] NIIT 1116_06IT (16 October 2009)

Drury v Larne Borough Council [2009] NIIT 1116_06IT (16 October 2009)

The tribunal refused the application for costs, finding that the claimant's conduct was not unreasonable or misconceived, that the rejection of the settlement offer was not unreasonable, and that the discretionary nature of costs awards, the inferential nature of discrimination claims, and the facts of the case did...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2009] NIIT 1116_06IT
Parties
Claimant: George Drury; Respondent: Larne Borough Council
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
16 October 2009
Procedural Posture
Industrial Tribunal Costs Application / Post Substantive Dismissal of Discrimination Claim; Costs Application Determination
Outcome
Respondent's application for costs refused.
Legal Topics
Costs in Employment Tribunals, Sex Discrimination, Unreasonable Conduct, Misconceived Proceedings
Employment Law Costs in Employment Tribunals Sex Discrimination Unreasonable Conduct Misconceived Proceedings

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

George Drury

Claimant

Larne Borough Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Industrial Tribunal Costs Application / Post Substantive Dismissal of Discrimination Claim; Costs Application Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an order for costs should be made against the claimant in favour of the respondent under Regulation 40(3), Schedule 1, The Industrial Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2005

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal refused the application for costs, finding that the claimant's conduct was not unreasonable or misconceived, that the rejection of the settlement offer was not unreasonable, and that the discretionary nature of costs awards, the inferential nature of discrimination claims, and the facts of the case did not justify a costs order.

Court Disposition

Respondent's application for costs refused.