Smolarek v Tewin Bury Farm Hotel Ltd & Anor (Practice and Procedure) [2017] UKEAT 0031_17_0507 (05 July 2017)

Smolarek v Tewin Bury Farm Hotel Ltd & Anor (Practice and Procedure) [2017] UKEAT 0031_17_0507 (05 July 2017)

The ET erred in law by expressly taking into account deterrence of future claims as a factor in setting the amount of the costs award, which is an improper consideration. This tainted the exercise of its discretion, requiring the question of the appropriate amount of costs to be remitted to the ET for reconsideration without reference to deterrence or punishment.

Citation
[2017] UKEAT 0031_17_0507
Parties
Appellant: Claimant; Respondent: First Respondent; Respondent: Second Respondent
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
05 July 2017
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal Tribunal / Appeal Against Costs Order Following Dismissal of Claims After Full Merits Hearing
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; matter remitted to same Employment Tribunal to reconsider the amount of costs award without reference to deterrence or punishment.
Legal Topics
Costs, Unreasonable Conduct, Deterrence, Compensatory Vs Punitive Costs, Employment Tribunal Rules
Employment Law Civil Procedure Costs Unreasonable Conduct Deterrence Compensatory Vs Punitive Costs Employment Tribunal Rules

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Claimant

Appellant

First Respondent

Respondent

Second Respondent

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal Tribunal / Appeal Against Costs Order Following Dismissal of Claims After Full Merits Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Employment Tribunal erred in law by taking into account irrelevant factors (deterrence/punishment) in making a costs order against the Claimant
  2. 2 Whether the amount of the costs award was tainted by improper considerations
  3. 3 Whether the ET's reasoning was clarified or corrected by its Reconsideration Judgment

Ratio Decidendi

The ET erred in law by expressly taking into account deterrence of future claims as a factor in setting the amount of the costs award, which is an improper consideration. This tainted the exercise of its discretion, requiring the question of the appropriate amount of costs to be remitted to the ET for reconsideration without reference to deterrence or punishment.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; matter remitted to same Employment Tribunal to reconsider the amount of costs award without reference to deterrence or punishment.

Orders

  • Remit the question of the amount of the costs award to the same Employment Tribunal for reconsideration.
  • Award the Claimant £400 in respect of appeal lodgement fee, payable by set-off against any costs finally due to the Respondents.