United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

BAILII case number: [1996] UKEAT 1210_95_1303

Appeal No. EAT/1210/95

EMPOLYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

At the Tribunal

On 13th March 1996

HIS HONOUR JUDGE N BUTTER Q.C.

MRS P TURNER OBE

MISS S M WILSON

---

THRISLINGTON ENGINEERING CO. LTD.          APPELLANTS

MR G LOWERSON          RESPONDENT

---

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

APPLICATION FOR COSTS

Revised


 


---

APPEARANCES

NO APPEARANCES OR REPRESENTATIVES


 


JUDGE BUTTER Q.C.: The only question which we have to consider is that of costs. The position is that this was an appeal by the employers against a majority decision of an Industrial Tribunal at Newcastle-upon-Tyne on 6th September 1995. The majority of the tribunal held that the applicant had been unfairly dismissed. The minority decision was that although the dismissal was fair compensation should be reduced by 40%.

The employers filed a Notice of Appeal and the appeal it appears was due to be heard in March. But the actual date was brought forward almost certainly because another case or cases fell out of the list with the result that the parties received very much less warning than usual that the case was listed for today.

It so happened that the employers had been giving further thought to the question of the appeal. Counsel, having considered the matter further, had expressed a view which led to the employers deciding to withdraw the appeal.

Unhappily, partly perhaps because the case had been listed on short notice, the parties were not able to communicate with each other much in advance. As a result, the applicant's solicitors had understandably instructed Counsel and have obtained an emergency Legal Aid Certificate.

They say that in all the circumstances the employers, Thrislington Engineering Co Ltd, should be order to pay costs.

It is only in exceptional circumstances where, in particular, one party or another has been unreasonable in pursuing an appeal, or acted improperly, that this tribunal would consider making such an order.

It should be noted that it was a majority decision. There was a detailed Notice of Appeal which did raise points which were no doubt arguable. We today are not in a position to assess the strength or otherwise of the appeal itself. On the face of it, it does seem to be an appeal which would have carried some, though not necessarily any substantial, degree of success.

In all the circumstances we do not feel that it would be right to order the employers to pay the costs, though we do sympathise with the position of the applicant by reason of the fact that his award may be subject to the Legal Aid Charge. For the reasons referred to above we make no order for costs.