Power v. Panasonic (UK) Ltd [2005] UKEAT 0439_04_0903 (9 March 2005)

Power v. Panasonic (UK) Ltd [2005] UKEAT 0439_04_0903 (9 March 2005)

The Employment Tribunal correctly applied the two-stage test under Rule 14(1), permissibly found the claimant's conduct unreasonable, and exercised its discretion within proper limits in awarding costs; no error of law was made out.

Citation
[2005] UKEAT 0439_04_0903
Parties
Appellant/claimant: Ms Power; Respondent/employer: Panasonic (UK) Limited
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
09 March 2005
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal Against Costs Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Costs Orders, Disability Discrimination, Unfair Dismissal, Breach of Contract
Employment Law Costs Orders Disability Discrimination Unfair Dismissal Breach of Contract

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 6 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ms Power

Appellant/claimant

Panasonic (UK) Limited

Respondent/employer

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal Against Costs Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Employment Tribunal erred in awarding costs against the successful claimant under Rule 14(1) of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2001
  2. 2 Whether the claimant's conduct was unreasonable within the meaning of Rule 14(1)
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal correctly applied the two-stage test for costs orders

Ratio Decidendi

The Employment Tribunal correctly applied the two-stage test under Rule 14(1), permissibly found the claimant's conduct unreasonable, and exercised its discretion within proper limits in awarding costs; no error of law was made out.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal against the costs order is dismissed.