Kopel v Safeway Stores Plc [2003] UKEAT 0281_02_1104 (11 April 2003)

Kopel v Safeway Stores Plc [2003] UKEAT 0281_02_1104 (11 April 2003)

The Employment Tribunal was entitled to conclude that the appellant's rejection of a reasonable settlement offer and her conduct in bringing misconceived claims constituted unreasonable conduct, justifying a costs order. The Tribunal's mistaken reference to the Calderbank rule did not amount to a material error of law, as the substance of its reasoning was correct.

Citation
[2003] UKEAT 0281_02_1104
Parties
Appellant: Appellant (name not specified); Respondent: Respondent (name not specified)
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
11 April 2003
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Constructive Dismissal, Sex Discrimination, Costs in Employment Tribunal, Human Rights Act Claims, Grievance Procedures
Employment Law Constructive Dismissal Sex Discrimination Costs in Employment Tribunal Human Rights Act Claims Grievance Procedures

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 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Appellant (name not specified)

Appellant

Respondent (name not specified)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant was constructively and unfairly dismissed
  2. 2 Whether the respondent discriminated against the appellant on grounds of sex
  3. 3 Whether the Employment Tribunal erred in awarding costs against the appellant

Ratio Decidendi

The Employment Tribunal was entitled to conclude that the appellant's rejection of a reasonable settlement offer and her conduct in bringing misconceived claims constituted unreasonable conduct, justifying a costs order. The Tribunal's mistaken reference to the Calderbank rule did not amount to a material error of law, as the substance of its reasoning was correct.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed in its entirety
  • The order for the appellant to pay £5,000 towards the respondent's costs is upheld