Vexatious claims
Employment tribunals can make awards for costs against a party who has acted “vexatiously, abusively, disruptively, or otherwise unreasonably” or if the claim is “misconceived”. This could be where a party has failed to comply with tribunal orders, behaved badly at the hearing or brought what is obviously a hopeless case.
In extreme cases, applications can be made to ban individuals who habitually bring vexatious claims against employers from bringing further employment tribunal claims. For example, restriction of proceedings orders were made in Her Majesty's Attorney General v Groves (19 claims in five years) and Her Majesty's Attorney General v Iteshi (30 employment cases in four years).
Hotel wins record costs after claim from ‘duplicitous’ employee
A hotel group has recouped £432,000 in legal costs following a vexatious claim by a former employee.
The award, for...
Job applicants with spurious intentions: what should employers do?
Police in Scotland have been informed about a serial job applicant who threatens to launch legal action if he is...
Trainee barrister who brought 30 employment tribunal claims is disbarred
A trainee barrister who was banned from bringing employment tribunal cases after he lodged 30 cases in four years against...
Serial litigant banned from further tribunal claims
In DLA Piper’s latest case report, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) granted an indefinite restriction of proceedings order preventing further...
Do employment tribunal fees lead to more contentious claims?
Tribunal fees were meant to spell the death knell for vexatious employment claims by ensuring that only claims with serious...
Employment tribunal costs: party’s insurance cover not a relevant consideration
In DLA Piper’s latest case report, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) held that, when an employment tribunal is considering whether...
Settlement agreements: practical tips on making them work
One year on from the introduction of “pre-termination negotiations” and the change from compromise agreements to “settlement agreements”, how can...
Tribunal fees judicial review to be heard this month
The new judicial review of the lawfulness of the Government’s introduction of employment tribunal fees will be heard later this...
Serial litigant who brought 30 employment cases in four years banned from tribunal claims
In DLA Piper’s latest case report, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) granted a restriction of proceedings order preventing the submission...
Employment tribunal fees “severely limit” workers’ access to justice
The introduction of employment tribunal fees has “severely limited access to justice for workers”, with worrying consequences for the future...
Tribunal watch: Sharon Shoesmith receives £680,000 payout over dismissal
Reports suggest that Sharon Shoesmith, former director of children’s services for the London Borough of Haringey, has been awarded more...
When is it worth making tribunal cost claims?
Burges Salmon’s Sarah Embleton and Natalie Jeffries discuss the recent changes to employment tribunal rules that give employment judges more...
Unmeritorious claimant ordered to pay around £60,000 in costs
Vaughan v London Borough of Lewisham and othersIn DLA Piper’s case of the week, Vaughan v London Borough of Lewisham...
Case of the week: Timbo v Greenwich Council for Rights and Equality
imbo v Greenwich Council for Rights and Equality
FACTS
Ms Timbo was employed by Greenwich Council for Rights and Equality...
Osborne hints at no-fault dismissals for small businesses
Chancellor George Osborne has suggested that compensated no-fault dismissals could be introduced for what he called “the smallest businesses” in...
Personnel Today has launched a new email newsletter focusing on all aspects of diversity and inclusion.
