Mardner v Gardner & Anor (Practice and Procedure : Costs) [2014] UKEAT 0483_13_2507 (25 July 2014)

Mardner v Gardner & Anor (Practice and Procedure : Costs) [2014] UKEAT 0483_13_2507 (25 July 2014)

The Employment Judge erred in law by treating the Claimant's insurance funding as a relevant factor in refusing to award costs. The existence of insurance is irrelevant to the exercise of discretion in awarding costs, and allowing Respondents to benefit from the Claimant's prudence would be contrary to public policy. The Judge's consideration of the Respondents' volunteer status was within her discretion, but the error regarding insurance rendered the decision unsafe.

Citation
[2014] UKEAT 0483_13_2507
Parties
Appellant: Claimant (Appellant); Respondent: First Respondent; Respondent: Second Respondent; Respondent: Third Respondent
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
25 July 2014
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal Tribunal / Appeal Against Employment Tribunal's Refusal to Award Costs
Outcome
Appeal allowed; matter remitted for fresh consideration
Legal Topics
Costs in Employment Tribunal, Discretion in Costs Awards, Relevance of Insurance in Costs, Volunteer Trustees' Liability
Employment Law Civil Procedure Costs in Employment Tribunal Discretion in Costs Awards Relevance of Insurance in Costs Volunteer Trustees' Liability

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 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Claimant (Appellant)

Appellant

First Respondent

Respondent

Second Respondent

Respondent

Third Respondent

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal Tribunal / Appeal Against Employment Tribunal's Refusal to Award Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Employment Judge erred in considering the Respondents' status as volunteer trustees as a reason not to award costs
  2. 2 Whether the Employment Judge erred in considering the Claimant's insurance funding as a reason not to award costs

Ratio Decidendi

The Employment Judge erred in law by treating the Claimant's insurance funding as a relevant factor in refusing to award costs. The existence of insurance is irrelevant to the exercise of discretion in awarding costs, and allowing Respondents to benefit from the Claimant's prudence would be contrary to public policy. The Judge's consideration of the Respondents' volunteer status was within her discretion, but the error regarding insurance rendered the decision unsafe.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; matter remitted for fresh consideration

Orders

  • Remitted to the same Employment Judge (if practicable) for fresh consideration of the appropriateness of a costs award, disregarding the Claimant's insurance funding.
  • Respondents jointly and severally liable for £1,600 costs to the Claimant for appeal fees.