[Thanks to Ed McFarlane of Deminos HR for preparing this case summary]
The EAT has handed down its decision in two costs cases, which are authority for the propositions that:
- A Tribunal did not err in making a costs order without taking into account a paying party's ability to pay, when a Claimant had left the hearing -but not the Tribunal building- being represented by a relative, and her conduct of proceedings overall had been 'outrageous'. The Tribunal has a wide ambit of discretion on costs, including whether it takes into account a party's means. The EAT approved the approach of a previous EAT in Jilley (bulletin 31 March 2008). (Mirikwe v Wilson & Co Solicitors & others).
- An Employment Tribunal has no power to make a preparation time order in favour of a non-legally represented party for time spent in attendance at a hearing. The clear wording of Rule 42 (3) does not allow for preparation time to be awarded for time spent at any Hearing. The Judgment suggests that preparation time might cover time spent outside of Tribunal rooms, during or between days of hearings. (Andrew v Eden College & others).