Ayoola v St Christopher’s Fellowship (Practice and Procedure : Costs) [2014] UKEAT 0508_13_0606 (06 June 2014)

Ayoola v St Christopher’s Fellowship (Practice and Procedure : Costs) [2014] UKEAT 0508_13_0606 (06 June 2014)

The Employment Judge did not err in principle in finding the claim misconceived and the conduct unreasonable, and did consider the appropriateness of a costs order. However, the Judge failed to provide adequate reasons or scrutiny for the amount of costs awarded (£10,000), necessitating remission for reconsideration of the quantum.

Citation
[2014] UKEAT 0508_13_0606
Parties
Appellant: Claimant (Appellant); Respondent: Respondent
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
06 June 2014
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal Tribunal / Appeal Against Costs Order Following Strike Out of Claim
Outcome
Appeal dismissed on ground 1 (appropriateness of costs order); appeal allowed on ground 2 (amount of costs); matter remitted to same Employment Judge for re-hearing on quantum only.
Legal Topics
Costs in Employment Tribunal, Strike Out of Claim, Unfair Dismissal, Agency Worker Status, Adequacy of Reasons, Discretion in Costs Awards
Employment Law Civil Procedure Costs in Employment Tribunal Strike Out of Claim Unfair Dismissal Agency Worker Status Adequacy of Reasons Discretion in Costs Awards

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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Claimant (Appellant)

Appellant

Respondent

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal Tribunal / Appeal Against Costs Order Following Strike Out of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Employment Judge erred in awarding costs without adequate reasons or proper exercise of discretion
  2. 2 Whether the amount of costs awarded (£10,000) was justified and adequately reasoned

Ratio Decidendi

The Employment Judge did not err in principle in finding the claim misconceived and the conduct unreasonable, and did consider the appropriateness of a costs order. However, the Judge failed to provide adequate reasons or scrutiny for the amount of costs awarded (£10,000), necessitating remission for reconsideration of the quantum.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed on ground 1 (appropriateness of costs order); appeal allowed on ground 2 (amount of costs); matter remitted to same Employment Judge for re-hearing on quantum only.

Orders

  • Remit to same Employment Judge for re-hearing on the amount of the costs award.