Melanie Carroll-Cliffe v Pembrey and Burry Port Town Council
[2024] EAT 125
K Pilgrim v Jasmine Care (Holdings) Ltd
8 October 2024
[2024] EAT 179
Employment Appeal Tribunal
A worker won their case but didn't get their legal costs covered. The appeal court said the original court was right, because while the company was slow and unhelpful, it wasn't bad enough to warrant costs. Also, they had already given the worker money for preparation time so couldn't also pay the legal fees.
Key Facts
- •Ms Pilgrim appealed an Employment Tribunal's decision not to award her costs after a successful claim against Jasmine Care (Holdings) Ltd.
- •The respondent repeatedly failed to comply with Tribunal orders and correspondence, causing delays.
- •A preparation time order had already been made against the respondent for unreasonable conduct.
- •The appeal concerned whether the Tribunal erred in not awarding costs and whether it had jurisdiction to do so after the preparation time order.
Legal Principles
Costs orders in Employment Tribunals are exceptional and require a high threshold of unreasonable conduct.
Osannaya v Queen Mary University [2011] EAT 0225/11
In considering costs, the Tribunal must look at the 'whole picture,' considering the nature, gravity, and effect of the unreasonable conduct.
Yerrakalva v Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council [2012] ICR 420; McPherson v BNP Paribas [2004] ICR 1398
A costs order and a preparation time order may not both be made in favour of the same party in the same proceedings. 'Proceedings' encompasses the whole claim from issue to final determination.
Employment Tribunals Procedure Rules 2013, regulation 75(3)
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The Employment Tribunal's decision not to award costs was permissible. The Tribunal considered the respondent's conduct but found it did not meet the high threshold for a costs order. Further, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to make a second costs award after already issuing a preparation time order within the same proceedings.