Vaughan v London Borough Of Lewisham & Ors (Practice and Procedure : Costs) [2013] UKEAT 0533_12_0606 (6 June 2013)

Vaughan v London Borough Of Lewisham & Ors (Practice and Procedure : Costs) [2013] UKEAT 0533_12_0606 (6 June 2013)

The Tribunal was entitled to find the claims misconceived and unreasonably pursued, and to make a costs order for one-third of the Respondents’ costs, even absent a deposit order or explicit costs warning, and despite the Appellant’s current inability to pay, given the realistic prospect of future means. The Tribunal’s approach was not perverse or legally erroneous.

Citation
[2013] UKEAT 0533_12_0606
Parties
Appellant: A A Vaughan; Respondents: Council and others (including previous employer and individual colleagues)
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
06 June 2013
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal Against Costs Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Costs Orders, Misconceived Claims, Discretionary Costs Awards, Ability to Pay, Settlement Offers, Unrepresented Litigants
Employment Law Civil Procedure Costs Orders Misconceived Claims Discretionary Costs Awards Ability to Pay Settlement Offers Unrepresented Litigants

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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A A Vaughan

Appellant

Council and others (including previous employer and individual colleagues)

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal Against Costs Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Employment Tribunal erred in law in making a costs order against the Appellant for misconceived claims
  2. 2 Whether absence of a deposit order or costs warning precluded a costs order
  3. 3 Whether the Appellant's means and unrepresented status should have precluded or reduced the costs order

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal was entitled to find the claims misconceived and unreasonably pursued, and to make a costs order for one-third of the Respondents’ costs, even absent a deposit order or explicit costs warning, and despite the Appellant’s current inability to pay, given the realistic prospect of future means. The Tribunal’s approach was not perverse or legally erroneous.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appellant to pay one-third of Respondents’ costs, to be assessed in the County Court