020 8263 6080
Get in Touch
- About Us
- Employee Services
- Questionnaire
- Contact
- Locations
- Dismissal
- Whistleblowing Law
- Discrimination
- Equal Pay
- Bullying and Harassment
- Family Friendly Rights
- Disciplinary and grievance hearings
- Contracts
- Transfer of Undertakings
- Agency workers and part time workers
- Privacy at work
- Constructive dismissal
- Resignation letter templates
- Health and Safety at Work
- Employer Employment Law
- Locations
- London
- London – Berkeley Square
- London – Canary Wharf
- London – Croydon
- London – Hammersmith
- London – High Holborn
- London – King’s Cross
- London – Liverpool Street
- London – London Bridge
- London – Richmond
- Birmingham
- Brighton
- Bristol
- Cardiff
- Gatwick Airport
- Guildford
- Manchester
- Milton Keynes
- Reading
- Watford
- Case Studies
- News
- FAQ
- Contact
An article in the Law Society Gazette has highlighted that an employment tribunal has ordered a claimant to pay £117,000 of costs.
The claimant, Dr D B Makanjula, had taken his employer, a local authority (the London Borough of Waltham Forest), to a tribunal for allegations relating to discrimination and matters arising from protected disclosures. Dr Makanjula in fact made 69 separate allegations relating to the above, and was found to be unsuccessful at tribunal who dismissed his claims in their entirety. Dr Maanjula, who had worked for the council as an environmental health officer for nearly 20 years, is appealing the decision.
In April last year, the tribunal rules were changed in order to allow higher cost awards against parties who have acted improperly, either in through their conduct during the course of proceedings, or in bringing or defending the claim. It was following these changes, that the tribunal has ordered costs totalling £117,000. These are said to be the costs that the council incurred for defending the claim, but are subject to a full assessment. It is important, however to note that this step is unusual and cost awards at Employment Tribunal remain the exception rather than the rule. It is still nonetheless likely to be pleasing to employers that these such orders can be imposed in the event of particularly unreasonable claims. According to the council’s law firm, the highest cost previously awarded to an individual was £83,000.
At the hearing last month in east London, Judge Ferris stated,
“when a large organisation (like the respondent) faces elaborately organised claims, presented by an extremely intelligent and unscrupulous litigant like the claimant, it is very much more difficult to defend than it is when a claimant is merely inefficient and clumsy. We accept that the cost to the respondent must, for these reasons, have been unusual and excessive.” (source the Law Gazette.)
Waltham Forest councillor Mark Rusling, cabinet member for economic development and corporate resources also said that “as a council we do not tolerate discrimination against any member of staff. All claims of this nature are taken seriously but where we know a claim is unfounded we will have no hesitation in vigorously defending the council’s position and recovering our costs, which is, at the end of the day, public money.” (source Waltham Forest Guardian)
