Factors the EAT will take into account when making an order for the repayment of an appellant's fees
In Horizon Security Services Ltd v Ndeze and another, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) considered the factors that should be taken into account when considering making an order for repayment of a successful appellant’s EAT fees.
A party pursuing an appeal in the EAT must pay an issue fee of £400 and a hearing fee of £1,200. The EAT has the discretion to make a costs order against a respondent in respect of some or all of the EAT fees paid by the appellant where the appeal is successful in full or in part. This is set out in rule 34(A) of the Employment Appeal Tribunal Rules 1993/2854 (as amended).
In this case, Horizon Security Service was successful in its appeal against the employment tribunal’s decision finding in favour of Mr Ndeze. Mr Ndeze did not participate in the EAT proceedings. Horizon paid the full £1,600 in EAT fees and applied for the EAT to exercise its discretion to make a costs order against Mr Ndeze in respect of the EAT fees…
Click on the link below to read the rest of the Addleshaw Goddard briefing.
News from Addleshaw Goddard
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from Addleshaw Goddard
Mr Justice Blair has clarified the scope of brokers’ duties in relation to business interruption cover in Eurokey Recycling Ltd v Giles Insurance Brokers.
Addleshaw Goddard has released the 16 October 2014 issue of its Data Issues Roundup, which provides a weekly round-up of data issues.
Analysis from The Lawyer
Which firms are cutting it in this era of slimline rosters, and who are the GC new brooms making clean sweeps? The Lawyer can reveal all
Could Slater & Gordon achieve its stated aim of becoming a top consumer brand by acquiring Pannone?