United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	NO APPEARANCE BY OR REPRESENTATION ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT OR THE RESPONDENTS
For the Respondents


 


MR JUSTICE MORISON (PRESIDENT): This is an application for costs arising out of a decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal which dismissed, at a preliminary hearing, a number of appeals which Mr Wheen had brought against various decisions of Industrial Tribunals dismissing his complaints of unlawful discrimination.

In giving the judgment of the Court I said this:

"I will indicate now that if any of the respondents named in these appeals believe that they have incurred expense or costs in dealing with the appeal so far, it would be open to them to make an application to the Court for the payment of their costs incurred by what have been, in our judgment, manifestly unreasonable appeals. This is a case where the Employment Appeal Tribunal would have jurisdiction to make an order for costs, but no order will be made unless one is sought with proper details of how much is being claimed, and Mr Wheen will obviously have an opportunity of dealing with any such application before it is considered by the Employment Appeal Tribunal."

One of the successful parties has applied for costs. Mr Wheen has written submissions to the Employment Appeal Tribunal by letter dated 20 October 1998. He makes a number of complaints about the EAT and the way his cases have been dealt with. Any such complaints relating to the judicial disposal of his cases can only be raised in the Court of Appeal. He asserts that he is entitled to have the question of costs dealt with by a fair and independent body which the EAT is not. Unfortunately for him, the EAT is the only body, at the moment, which can deal with this matter, and we have looked at the case with care and it seems to us that as this was a manifestly unreasonable appeal, the Derbyshire Dales District Council and Mr G. Taylor should be entitled to recover the costs which they incurred in preparing themselves for this preliminary hearing.

Because Respondents are not required to appear at a preliminary hearing, we expect their cost to be relatively modest but they are entitled, as it seems to us, when they become aware that an appeal is pending, first of all to take time to complete the PHD form, which they are required to do, and to consider how best to approach the matter at that time.

The sum for costs which is claimed in this case is £168.02 for perusing documentation, completing the PHD form, correspondence and VAT. We have power to assess costs or to ask them to be taxed.

It seems to us, having regard to the modest bill which has been presented to us, that it would be sensible for the costs to be assessed in this case. Having regard to the way that figures have been set out I am satisfied that £168.02 is a reasonable sum in all the circumstances and, therefore, despite Mr Wheen's protest that he is not being dealt with fairly, the order for costs in that sum will be made against him.