Melanie Carroll-Cliffe v Pembrey and Burry Port Town Council
[2024] EAT 125
D Ireland v University College London
3 May 2024
[2024] EAT 68
Employment Appeal Tribunal
A man lost his discrimination case and had to pay the other side's legal fees. He appealed, arguing the judge was unfair, but the appeal court disagreed. The court said the judge acted within their powers, and the man's bad behavior during the case justified the costs award, even if it wasn't perfectly linked to the specific fees.
Key Facts
- •Mr. Ireland (claimant/appellant) brought a race discrimination claim against University College London (respondent/respondent) following withdrawal of a job offer.
- •The Employment Tribunal (ET) dismissed the claim, awarding £14,000 in costs against Mr. Ireland.
- •Mr. Ireland's application for wasted costs against the respondent's representatives was also dismissed.
- •Mr. Ireland appealed both decisions to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT).
- •Mr. Ireland acted in person throughout the proceedings.
- •Mr. Ireland's conduct included sending abusive emails to the respondent and its representatives and making numerous applications to the ET.
- •The respondent repeatedly warned Mr. Ireland about the weakness of his case and the risk of costs.
Legal Principles
An ET's case management decision will only be overturned if it erred in principle, failed to consider relevant factors, or reached a perverse decision.
Bastick v James Lane (Turf Accountants) Ltd [1979] ICR 778 EAT
A perversity challenge succeeds only if an overwhelming case is made that no reasonable ET could have reached the decision.
Yeboah v Crofton [2002] EWCA Civ 794
Rule 39(5) ET Rules creates a presumption that a party acted unreasonably in pursuing a claim if the Tribunal dismisses it for substantially the same reasons as a prior deposit order.
Hemdan v Ishmail [2017] IRLR 228 EAT
Costs orders in ETs are the exception, not the rule, and are compensatory, not punitive.
Yerrakalva v Barnsley [2011] EWCA Civ 1255
When determining costs, the ET must consider whether a party acted vexatiously, abusively, disruptively, or unreasonably, or if the claim had no reasonable prospect of success.
Rule 76 ET Rules
There need not be a precise causal link between unreasonable conduct and specific costs claimed.
McPherson v BNP Paribas (London Branch) (No 1) [2004] EWCA Civ 569
The ET must consider the litigant's status (layperson or professional) when assessing reasonableness, and should not judge a layperson by professional standards.
AQ Ltd v Holden [2012] IRLR 648
Delay by the ET does not automatically give rise to a question of law, but may if it leads to a perverse decision or deprives a party of a fair trial.
Bangs v Connex South Eastern Ltd [2005] EWCA Civ 14
Costs applications relating to the conduct of a hearing should be determined by the same ET panel that heard the case.
Riley v Secretary of State for Justice and ors UKEAT/0438/14
Outcomes
Both appeals (costs and wasted costs) were dismissed.
The EAT found no errors of law in the ET's decisions. The ET's case management decisions were within its discretion, and the findings regarding Mr. Ireland's unreasonable conduct and the lack of merit in his claim were supported by the evidence.