With the Unison challenge to the introduction of fees in the employment tribunal and the EAT ongoing, in Horizon Security Services Limited v (1) Ndeze and (2) The PCS Group, the EAT awarded £1,600 in costs to reimburse the fees of the successful appellant, Horizon Security Services, and in doing so revisited and added to the principles established by another division of the EAT in Portnykh v Nomura International Plc, where such a costs order is being considered.
According to the EAT, as the Government apparently recognised in the alteration of its position during the Unison Judicial Review proceedings before the High Court, the introduction of fees changes the landscape. As a statement of general principle in the EAT, it might well seem unjust if a successful Appellant were unable to recover the fees they have had to pay from the party that had resisted the appeal. That statement of general principle might need to be tempered to take account of the particular facts of an appeal.
The issue may not be so clear-cut where, for example, the Appellant has only been partly successful. It might also be considered inappropriate or unjust to make such an award if the Respondent’s means are such that they could not pay the sums in question. The EAT retains a broad discretion but, following the introduction of fees, the general expectation must be that a successful Appellant will be entitled to recover the sums paid from a Respondent that had actively sought to resist the appeal.
Content Note
The aim is to provide summary information and comment on the subject areas covered. In particular, where employment tribunal and appellate court cases are reported, the information does not set out full details of all the facts, the legal arguments presented by the parties and the judgments made in every aspect of the case. Click on the links provided to access full details. If no link is provided contact us for further information. Employment law is subject to constant change either by statute or by interpretation by the courts. While every care has been taken in compiling this information, SM&B cannot be held responsible for any errors or omissions. Specialist legal advice must be taken on any legal issues that may arise before embarking upon any formal course of action.
This provides summary information and comment on the subject areas covered. Where employment tribunal and appellate court cases are reported, the information does not set out all of the facts, the legal arguments presented and the judgments made in every aspect of the case. Employment law is subject to constant change either by statute or by interpretation by the courts. While every care has been taken in compiling this information, we cannot be held responsible for any errors or omissions. Specialist legal advice must be taken on any legal issues that may arise before embarking upon any formal course of action.
