Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Recruitment & retention
    • Wellbeing
    • Occupational Health
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise

Personnel Today

Register
Log in
Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Recruitment & retention
    • Wellbeing
    • Occupational Health
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise

Employment lawEquality, diversity and inclusionLatest NewsEmployment tribunals

Racial abuse lie leaves claimant facing costs bill after ‘monumental’ ruling

by John Charlton 26 May 2009
by John Charlton 26 May 2009

A tribunal claimant faces a bill for costs after the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) found recently that she had lied about a claim that she had been racially abused by her manager, a ruling described as “monumental” by the defendant’s lawyer.

The EAT ruled, in Daleside Nursing Home v Mrs C Mathew, that because the latter had fabricated a “deliberate and cynical lie” the Employment Tribunal had the power to award costs against her, and referred the matter back to it. Originally the Liverpool ET had declined to exercise that power.

The original case centred on two claims made by Mathew: that she had been called “a black bitch” by her manager, and that she had been underpaid after a change of management at the Birkenhead care home.

Even though the ET found that the “allegation of explicit and offensive racial abuse was false”, it refused to order Mathew to pay costs as she “did have a genuine belief that the claim had some merit”.

But, said the EAT, “where there is such a clear-cut finding that the central allegation of racial abuse was a lie, it is perverse for the ET to fail to conclude that the making of such a false allegation at the heart of the claim does not constitute a person acting unreasonably.

“This was plainly a case where some order for costs ought to have been made. How much that order for costs ought to have been is not a matter which we are in a position to judge.”

Daleside Nursing Home’s lawyer, Paul Dumbleton, senior partner at Beech Jones de Lloyd, said: “I am delighted with the outcome of this case. Although I am not an employment lawyer, it was obvious to me that if the costs were not awarded in a case brought upon fabricated allegations then they would never be awarded.

“There are very few reported cases involving legal cost issues in situations such as this, and it is very rare indeed for the EAT to intervene. This is a monumental result and a case which can and will be referred to by many other employers when similar cases are brought against them.”

Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance

Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday

OptOut
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

According to the EAT report the costs may be about £25,000.

As for the underpayment allegation, the ET ruled that since the claimant had accepted it for 14 months it was reasonable for Daleside to assume it was the right rate of pay. Mathew had been paid £11.50 per hour by the old management and £11 by Daleside.

John Charlton

previous post
MP Lynne Featherstone defends anonymous CVs plan
next post
Cameron promises transfer of power from the EU to Britain

You may also like

Bank holidays: six things employers need to know

22 Aug 2025

Exec hauled over coals for sleeping in sauna...

22 Aug 2025

Lidl enters agreement with EHRC to prevent sexual...

22 Aug 2025

Workers need more protection from heatwaves, says WHO

22 Aug 2025

Immigration: huge fall in health and care worker...

22 Aug 2025

Government takes control of UK’s third largest steelworks

22 Aug 2025

X settles severance claims of former Twitter employees

22 Aug 2025

Space X scores court win against US National...

22 Aug 2025

Nature charity unfairly dismisses employee in ‘woeful’ process

22 Aug 2025

What will new workplace heat guidance mean for...

22 Aug 2025

  • Elevate your L&D strategy at the World of Learning 2025 SPONSORED | This October...Read more
  • How to employ a global workforce from the UK (webinar) WEBINAR | With an unpredictable...Read more

Personnel Today Jobs
 

Search Jobs

PERSONNEL TODAY

About us
Contact us
Browse all HR topics
Email newsletters
Content feeds
Cookies policy
Privacy policy
Terms and conditions

JOBS

Personnel Today Jobs
Post a job
Why advertise with us?

EVENTS & PRODUCTS

The Personnel Today Awards
The RAD Awards
Employee Benefits
Forum for Expatriate Management
Whatmedia

ADVERTISING & PR

Advertising opportunities
Features list 2025

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • Linkedin


© 2011 - 2025 DVV Media International Ltd

Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Recruitment & retention
    • Wellbeing
    • Occupational Health
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise