At the Tribunal | |
Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE J McMULLEN QC
MR C EDWARDS
MR P A L PARKER CBE
APPELLANT | |
RESPONDENT |
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
Revised
For the Appellant | MR STUART BRITTENDEN (of Counsel) Instructed By: Russell Jones & Walker Solicitors Swinton House 324 Gray's Inn Road London WC1X 8DH |
For the Respondent | MR DIJEN BASU (of Counsel) Instructed By: Fox Williams Solicitors 10 Dominion Street London EC2M 2EE |
JUDGE J McMULLEN QC:
Introduction
The legislation
"(1) Where, in the opinion of the tribunal, a party has in bringing the proceedings, or a party or a party's representative has in conducting the proceedings, acted vexatiously, abusively, disruptively or otherwise unreasonably, or the bringing or conducting of the proceedings by a party has been misconceived, the tribunal shall consider making and, if it so decides, may make –
(a) an order containing an award against that party in respect of the costs incurred by another party;
(b) an order that that party shall pay to the Secretary of State the whole, or any part, of any allowances (other than allowances paid to members of tribunals) paid by the Secretary of State under section 5(2) or (3) of the 1996 Act to any person for the purposes of, or in connection with, his attendance at the tribunal."
"68 In reaching our decision on the issue of whether costs should be awarded against Mr Edwards, we took the following matters into account:-
68.1 On the evidence before this Tribunal it is clear that Mr Edwards' claims are misconceived and had no reasonable prospect of success.
68.2 On 11 January Mr Edwards was clearly warned by the Tribunal hearing the application on that day to seek legal advice on the question of costs and told of the £10,000 maximum specified sum.
68.3 Mr Edwards has made 12 claims against the Respondent of which two were withdrawn because other claims were presented in the county court, making ten separate claims.
68.4 The total costs of the Respondent are in excess of £50,000. Mr Edwards clearly knew that their costs ran to tens of thousands of pounds because in one of his e-mails he mentions costs in the region of £30,000 for the Respondent.
68.5 The e-mails in the bundle suggest that Mr Edwards was legally advised earlier in the proceedings although he says that he was not.
68.6 With motivation, this matter ought to have been settled and costs have been incurred out of all proportion with the seriousness of the dispute but Mr Edwards has behaved vexatiously in spite of having been warned.
68.7 The Respondent seeks costs to be assessed.
69 The Tribunal did not consider it appropriate to order costs to be assessed but in view of the misconceived claim and the vexatious way in which Mr Edwards has pursued it, it is the unanimous decision of the Tribunal to order that Mr Edwards pay the Respondent costs in the sum of £10,000."
The appeal
The parties
Costs Application