Addleshaw Goddard

UK 200 2013 position: 23

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.

Briefings from Addleshaw Goddard

View more briefings from Addleshaw Goddard

Analysis from The Lawyer

  • pannone.jpg

    Another Mancunian merger for Slater & Gordon?

    Could Slater & Gordon achieve its stated aim of becoming a top consumer brand by acquiring Pannone?

  • Addleshaws

    Number crunching: Addleshaw Goddard

    The past five years have not been easy for Addleshaw Goddard. The firm’s revenue fell 7 per cent from £173.1m to £161.9m between 2008/09 and 2010/11 and despite finances looking up in 2011/12, when Addleshaws reported a 30 per cent increase in net profit, it has shown no notable compound growth in turnover since 2007/08.

View more analysis from The Lawyer


Milton Gate
60 Chiswell Street

Turnover (£m): 166.50
No. of Lawyers: 592