United Road Transport Union & Ors v Shaw Carpets [1996] UKEAT 211_96_2511 (25 November 1996)
It was both unnecessary and unreasonable for the individual appellants to pursue their appeals to a hearing after abandoning all original grounds; costs are awarded to the respondent under Rule 34(1).
- Citation
- [1996] UKEAT 211_96_2511
- Parties
- Appellants: URTU and five named applicants; Respondent: Shaw Carpets Ltd
- Jurisdiction
- United Kingdom
- Judgment Date
- 25 November 1996
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Post Hearing Costs Application
- Outcome
- costs awarded to respondent
- Legal Topics
- Redundancy, Protective Award, Unfair Dismissal, Costs Application
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 3 Party arguments 2
Parties
URTU and five named applicants
Appellants
Shaw Carpets Ltd
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Post Hearing Costs Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appeal was pursued on unarguable grounds
- 2 Whether costs should be awarded against union-backed appellants
Ratio Decidendi
It was both unnecessary and unreasonable for the individual appellants to pursue their appeals to a hearing after abandoning all original grounds; costs are awarded to the respondent under Rule 34(1).
Court Disposition
costs awarded to respondent
Orders
- Costs limited to hearing of substantive appeal and costs application.
- Costs to be agreed between parties or taxed under Rule 34(2) if not agreed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment