Soll (Vale) v. Jaggers [2017] UKEAT 0218_16_0610 (6 October 2017)

Soll (Vale) v. Jaggers [2017] UKEAT 0218_16_0610 (6 October 2017)

The EAT has jurisdiction to consider costs applications for both ET and EAT proceedings, and the Respondent's application for ET costs was made in time as the EAT's order finally determined the proceedings. However, it is appropriate for the ET to determine the merits and amount of any costs award for its own proceedings. As for EAT costs, the Claimant's defence was not wholly misconceived or unreasonable, and even if part of it was, it would not justify a costs award for the EAT proceedings.

Citation
[2017] UKEAT 0218_16_0610
Parties
Appellant: Claimant; Respondent: Respondent
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
06 October 2017
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal Tribunal (eat) Costs Application / Post Appeal, Application for Costs Following Successful Appeal by Respondent
Outcome
Applications for costs dismissed by the EAT.
Legal Topics
Costs, Unfair Dismissal, Employment Tribunal Procedure, Appeal Procedure
Employment Law Civil Procedure Costs Unfair Dismissal Employment Tribunal Procedure Appeal Procedure

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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Claimant

Appellant

Respondent

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal Tribunal (eat) Costs Application / Post Appeal, Application for Costs Following Successful Appeal by Respondent

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the EAT has jurisdiction to award costs for both ET and EAT proceedings
  2. 2 Whether the Respondent's application for costs in ET proceedings was made in time
  3. 3 Whether the Claimant's conduct justified an award of costs in either forum

Ratio Decidendi

The EAT has jurisdiction to consider costs applications for both ET and EAT proceedings, and the Respondent's application for ET costs was made in time as the EAT's order finally determined the proceedings. However, it is appropriate for the ET to determine the merits and amount of any costs award for its own proceedings. As for EAT costs, the Claimant's defence was not wholly misconceived or unreasonable, and even if part of it was, it would not justify a costs award for the EAT proceedings.

Court Disposition

Applications for costs dismissed by the EAT.

Orders

  • ET to determine the merits and amount of any costs award for ET proceedings if pursued.
  • No order as to costs for EAT proceedings.