Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • 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
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Personnel Today

Register
Log in
Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • 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
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

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

Empower and engage for the future: A revolution...

7 Jul 2025

Bereavement leave to extend to miscarriages before 24...

7 Jul 2025

One in seven ‘revenge quit’ in latest employee...

7 Jul 2025

Skills shortfall in construction threatens housing target

4 Jul 2025

Company director wins £15k after being told to...

4 Jul 2025

MPs demand Home Office tightens visas to protect...

4 Jul 2025

It’s all about the Monet: how art transforms...

3 Jul 2025

Stop chasing quick fixes: return to the office...

3 Jul 2025

Asda hails major upgrade in employees’ benefits

3 Jul 2025

100% success for latest large-scale four-day week trial

3 Jul 2025

  • Empowering working parents and productivity during the summer holidays SPONSORED | Businesses play a...Read more
  • AI is here. Your workforce should be ready. SPONSORED | From content creation...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 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
    • 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
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+