Costs: Lying Litigants

[Thanks to Will Dobson of Cloisters for providing this case summary]

The EAT in Dunedin Canmore Housing Association v Donaldson has held that it was perverse for the Tribunal to have refused to award costs where the claimant's assertions that she had not disclosed details of her compromise agreement in breach of a confidentiality clause were false.

The Claimant brought proceedings for breach of a compromise agreement, claiming she had not been in breach of a confidentiality clause. The Tribunal rejected her evidence and found she had made disclosures to two people. Nonetheless, it declined to award costs against her as it took the view that it was necessary for her to bring proceedings as the employer had alleged that the claimant had breached the clause.

The EAT disagreed and observed:

• there was no basis for the view that proceedings were 'necessary' or that the claimant had no other alternative but bring proceedings where she knew her assertions were false;
  
  
• the fact that the claimant was a lay person was irrelevant - what mattered was whether she had or had not, in simple human terms, approached the essential factual matters that lay at the heart of her case honestly and reasonably

Because she had not approached the case honestly and reasonably, the EAT reversed the tribunal's decision on costs and ordered the Claimant to pay her ex-employer's legal costs.

This case follows the EAT's earlier judgment in Daleside Nursing Home Ltd v Mathew which held that it was perverse for a Tribunal not to award costs where the central allegation of racial abuse was a lie.

Costs: Lying Litigants

[Thanks to Paul Lewis of St John's Chambers for writing this case summary]

The EAT has handed down its decision in Daleside Nursing Home v Mathew, which is authority for the proposition that where there is a clear-cut finding that the central allegation in a discrimination claim is a lie, it is perverse for the Tribunal to conclude that the making of such a false allegation does not constitute unreasonable behaviour for the purposes of costs.

At the heart of the direct race discrimination claim was the allegation that the Claimant had been called "a black bitch" by her manager. After hearing evidence, the Tribunal concluded that this was untrue. However, when the discrimination claim subsequently failed, the Tribunal declined to make a costs order on the basis that the Claimant had a genuine belief in her claim, and had not acted unreasonably.

The EAT held that the Tribunal, in light of the findings of fact which had been made, should have come to the conclusion that the Claimant had acted unreasonably in bringing and conducting the proceedings, and was therefore wrong in law to reject the claim for costs on that basis.

Costs in Employment Tribunals

If you're interested in costs applications in employment tribunals, I've just co-written a new book on the subject.

It's packed with practical tips on how to obtain or resist costs applications, conveniently arranged in sections covering lying litigants, hopeless allegations, costs warnings, adjournments, and much more.



Jordans Publishing
April 2010
270 pages hardback