Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
    • Advertise
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Equality, diversity and inclusion
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • 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
    • OHW Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • XpertHR
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Pricing
    • Free trial
    • Subscribe
    • XpertHR USA
  • Webinars
  • OHW+

Personnel Today

Register
Log in
Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
    • Advertise
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Equality, diversity and inclusion
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • 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
    • OHW Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • XpertHR
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Pricing
    • Free trial
    • Subscribe
    • XpertHR USA
  • Webinars
  • OHW+

Vexatious claimsEmployment tribunals

Employment tribunal costs: party’s insurance cover not a relevant consideration

by Aaron Lyons 12 Nov 2014
by Aaron Lyons 12 Nov 2014

In DLA Piper’s latest case report, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) held that, when an employment tribunal is considering whether or not to award costs, the insurance cover of the party seeking the costs order is irrelevant.

Mardner v Gardner and others EAT/0483/13

Facts

The claimant, Mr Mardner, was employed as a director of Essex Racial Equality Council. The respondents, Mr Gardner, Mr Alley and Ms Press, were volunteer members of the management committee of the charity. The charity was not incorporated and so the respondents were personally liable for all of the liabilities of the charity, including any issues arising from Mr Mardner’s employment.

During the latter part of 2009, the charity began to run out of money. By 22 December 2009, its working capital had reduced to such extent that the trustees could no longer pay Mr Mardner’s salary and his employment was summarily terminated.

XpertHR resources: Employment tribunals and costs

When is it worth making employment tribunal cost claims?

Employment tribunal orders unmeritorious claimant to pay around £60,000 in costs

Age discrimination: employment tribunal awards costs totalling more than £68,000

In response, Mr Mardner brought unfair dismissal proceedings in the employment tribunal. The trustees had not taken steps to have the charity incorporated, despite admitting being aware of the need to do so in 2007. The individual trustees found themselves jointly and severally liable for any potential award that Mr Mardner might receive.

Employment tribunal claim

In an attempt to defend the employment tribunal claim, the trustees maintained an argument that the charity had in fact been converted into a company limited by guarantee. They argued that, as the claim was raised against them as individuals, it had not been raised against the relevant party to the claim and therefore could not succeed.

Eventually, in November 2012, Mr Mardner’s employment tribunal claim was settled by way of a consent order. The employment judge ruled that the respondents’ defence was misconceived and to rely on it was unreasonable.

As a result, Mr Mardner presented an application for costs against the respondents. It is open for an employment tribunal to award costs where a party has acted vexatiously, abusively, disruptively, or otherwise unreasonably in bringing or conducting proceedings, or a part of them. An employment tribunal has a wide discretion as to whether or not to award costs.

In coming to the decision not to award any costs against the respondents, the employment judge exercised her discretion and concluded that it was not appropriate to do so. She noted that:

  • the respondents were volunteers and trustees of a charity and were already personally liable for Mr Mardner’s successful unfair dismissal claim; and
  • Mr Mardner was funded by an insurer and so was not personally out of pocket.

Mr Mardner appealed to the EAT.

EAT decision

The EAT decided that the employment judge had used her discretion inappropriately in respect of her reasons for not making a costs award.

The EAT concentrated on the emphasis the judge had placed on the fact that the claimant was insured and was not personally out of pocket as a result of bringing his claim.

The EAT ruled that a party’s insurance is irrelevant when considering costs. It is a well-established principle that it is contrary to fairness and justice for a wrongdoer to benefit from an insurance policy that an innocent party has paid for. It was also considered that the EAT rules allow a costs award even when the receiving party is not personally out of pocket.

There was no criticism from the EAT in respect of the employment judge’s consideration that the respondents were personally liable for the costs, as the charity was not incorporated. The EAT concluded that the employment judge was not suggesting in general terms that costs should never be awarded against individual trustees, but simply that costs should not be awarded in these particular circumstances. It was open for the employment judge to apply her wide discretion to the facts and circumstances of this particular case.

The case was remitted back to the employment tribunal to allow the judge to consider the appropriateness of making an award in the light of the EAT decision.

Implications for employers

Subject to a complete change of heart by the employment judge, it is likely that the decision not to award costs will still be applied. This case provides further authority that it is not appropriate for a respondent to rely on a claimant’s insurance policy, or the fact that the claimant is not personally out of pocket, when defending applications for costs.

Avatar
Aaron Lyons

Aaron Lyons is an associate at DLA Piper.

previous post
Are you missing out on top talent by being anti-social? (webinar)
next post
Do employment tribunal fees lead to more contentious claims?

You may also like

Christian awarded £22k following dismissal over religious necklace

24 Jun 2022

Long Covid: what tribunal’s disability ruling means for...

23 Jun 2022

Bolt drivers strike as union launches workers’ rights...

15 Jun 2022

Whistleblowing nurse awarded £462k for unfair dismissal

15 Jun 2022

Frewer v Google: How it’s getting harder to...

30 May 2022

Aspers casino cashier excluded by colleagues wins £75k...

23 May 2022

BNP Paribas banker accused of ’emotional terrorism’ wins...

19 May 2022

Bald move: Tribunal was right in sex-related harassment...

17 May 2022

Employment tribunal: use of word ‘bald’ can amount...

13 May 2022

Solicitor unfairly dismissed during cancer recovery awarded £17k

6 May 2022
  • NSPCC revamps its learning strategy with child wellbeing at its heart PROMOTED | The NSPCC’s mission is to prevent abuse and neglect...Read more
  • Diversity versus inclusion: Why the difference matters PROMOTED | It’s possible for an environment to be diverse, but not inclusive...Read more
  • Five steps for organisations across the globe to become more skills-driven PROMOTED | The shift in the world of work has been felt across the globe...Read more
  • The future of workforce development PROMOTED | Northumbria University and partners share insight...Read more
  • Strathclyde Business School expands its Degree Apprenticeship offer in England PROMOTED | The University of Strathclyde is expanding its programmes...Read more
  • The Search for Talent: Six Major Employer Pitfalls PROMOTED | The Great Resignation continues unabated...Read more
  • Navigating the widening “Skills Confidence Gap” in 2022, and beyond PROMOTED | Cornerstone OnDemand conducted a global study...Read more
  • Apprenticeships are the solution to your recruitment problems PROMOTED | Apprenticeships have the pulling power...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
OHW+
Whatmedia

ADVERTISING & PR

Advertising opportunities
Features list 2022

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • Linkedin


© 2011 - 2022 DVV Media International Ltd

Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
    • Advertise
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Equality, diversity and inclusion
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • 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
    • OHW Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • XpertHR
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Pricing
    • Free trial
    • Subscribe
    • XpertHR USA
  • Webinars
  • OHW+