In the recent case of Ghosh –v- Nokia Siemens Networks UK Limited the Employment Appeal Tribunal had to review a decision by the Employment Tribunal in which it had ordered the Claimant to pay costs of £5,000 to the Respondent on the basis of what it found to be unreasonable conduct of the proceedings.
Background
The Tribunal had found that the Claimant had made a series of serious allegations against the Respondent and, in particular, her line manager. The Tribunal had rejected these allegations fully and had concluded that her line manager had, in fact, been, throughout his time as the Claimant’s manager, wholly supportive of the Claimant, and had managed her with sensitivity at all times. The Tribunal was therefore satisfied that the pursuit of the serious claims of discrimination primarily against her line manager constituted wholly unreasonable conduct.
The Tribunal had come to the conclusion that a contribution of £10,000 should be made to the Respondent’s costs. They recognised that even an award of £10,000 would be wholly inadequate in the context of reimbursing the Respondent for the costs that it had had to incur in defending the claim. However, in the event, the Tribunal also had to take into account the Claimant’s means (or rather lack of means) and, therefore, limited the amount that she was directed to pay to £5,000. The order for costs was made despite the fact that there was no express finding by the Tribunal that the Claimant had been dishonest.
The decision
The Appeal Tribunal held that the Employment Tribunal had been entitled to exercise its discretion to make the costs order that it had made. In particular, it dismissed the Claimant’s suggestion that an order for costs would somehow discourage litigants from pursuing cases and stated that the only litigants who might be discouraged to pursue cases were those who attempted to behave unreasonably.
Conclusion
The case is a reminder of the fact that the Tribunal is prepared to exercise its power to make costs orders from time to time particularly when it is satisfied that the Claimant has behaved unreasonably in the way that s/he has pursued the claim.