Thanks to Nathaniel Caiden of Cloisters for preparing this case summary
HHJ Eady QC in Horizon Security Services Limited v PCS Group has laid down the following general principles in relation to appellants recovering EAT fees upon being successful on appeal:
i) There is no need for a ‘cost threshold’ to be crossed (eg unreasonable conduct) by those responding to an appeal for them to be ordered to pay the fee element of the costs under rule 34A(2A) of the Employment Appeal Tribunal Rules 1993 (judgment at -);
ii) The EAT however has a broad discretion in considering whether or not to award the fee element of costs. Although in general there is the expectation that a successful appellant will be entitled to recover the fee it paid from a respondent that actively sought to resist the appeal, there may be cases where no such costs will be awarded. Examples of this could include where a party has only been partly successful on appeal, or where the means of the paying party would render it unjust for it to pay the costs (judgment at -).
In this particular appeal, Horizon Security Services Limited were successful in its appeal and PCS, who resisted all grounds of appeal, were duly ordered to pay Horizon’s fee for appealing (£1,600).