Iteshi v Office of Water Services (Ofwat) (Practice and Procedure : Costs) [2011] UKEAT 0178_11_2209 (22 September 2011)

The Claimant's conduct was unreasonable, vexatious, and the claim was misconceived; costs are justified under EAT rule 34A(1).

Citation: [2011] UKEAT 0178_11_2209
Parties: Appellant's Counsel: Edward Kemp; Respondent's Counsel: Charlene Hawkins; Respondent's Solicitors: DLA Piper UK LLP
Jurisdiction: United Kingdom
Judgment Date: 22 September 2011
Procedural Posture: Costs Application in Appellate Employment Jurisdiction / Post Appeal, Costs Determination
Outcome: Application for costs granted
Legal Topics: Costs, Vexatious Litigation, Misconceived Claims, Abuse of Process

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

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 1

Edward Kemp

Appellant's Counsel

Charlene Hawkins

Respondent's Counsel

DLA Piper UK LLP

Respondent's Solicitors

Costs Application in Appellate Employment Jurisdiction / Post Appeal, Costs Determination

1 Whether the claim and appeal were misconceived, vexatious, and unreasonably conducted
2 Whether costs should be awarded under EAT rule 34A(1)

The Claimant's conduct was unreasonable, vexatious, and the claim was misconceived; costs are justified under EAT rule 34A(1).

Application for costs granted