[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Timmins & Ors v Shaw Carpets Ltd [1996] UKEAT 1351_95_1806 (18 June 1996) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1996/1351_95_1806.html Cite as: [1996] UKEAT 1351_95_1806

[New search] [Help]

BAILII case number: [1996] UKEAT 1351_95_1806

Appeal No. EAT/1351/95

EAT/1352/95

EMPOLYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

At the Tribunal

On 18th June 1996

HIS HONOUR JUDGE PETER CLARK

MR D A C LAMBERT

MISS S M WILSON

---

MR D TIMMINS & OTHERS          APPELLANTS

SHAW CARPETS LTD          RESPONDENTS

---

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

Revised


 


---

APPEARANCES

For the Appellants

For the Respondents


 


IP (18/6/96)

JUDGE CLARK:

COSTS

Following promulgation of our Reserved Judgment in these two appeals Mr Swift made an application before me for costs on behalf of the successful Respondents. That application was opposed by Mr Bowers on behalf of the Appellants. I heard the submissions on both sides and adjourned consideration of the application in order to consult with the members who sat at the original hearing. Having done so we now give our decision on this application.

The power to award costs is circumscribed by Rule 34(1) of the Employment Appeal Rules 1993, which provides:

"34 (1) Where it appears to the Appeal Tribunal that any proceedings were unnecessary, improper or vexatious or that there has been unreasonable delay or other unreasonable conduct in bringing or conducting the proceedings the Tribunal may order the party at fault to pay any other party the whole or such part as it thinks fit of the costs or expenses incurred by that other party in connection with the proceedings."

In support of the application Mr Swift contends that neither appeal, both the appeal against the section 59 finding and against the second Industrial Tribunal decision that the dismissals for redundancy were fair under section 57(3), disclosed any arguable point of law; that he was not called on to respond to the section 59 appeal and that the section 57(3) decision raised only a question of fact for the Industrial Tribunal; that the Respondents had put in full Answers to each appeal, which ought to have been carefully considered by the Appellants and their advisers, leading to the appeals being discontinued. In the circumstances, he submits that the prosecution of the appeals was unnecessary and/or unreasonable.

In our judgment the application fails. We are not persuaded that the appeals, which were heard together on one day, were unarguable or wholly without foundation. We did not indicate to Mr Swift that no argument was necessary on the section 59 appeal; we merely invited him to stand on his Skeleton if he so wished. Had we thought that the appeals were groundless we would have said as much in our substantive judgment. We do not consider that Mr Swift has passed the thresholds imposed by Rule 34(1).

Accordingly the application is dismissed.

Note from Judge Peter Clark 18 June 1996

to

David Lambert and Sue Wilson:

I heard this application for costs in your absence when I handed down our judgment in these cases.

Having done so, it seems to me that this is not a case in which to award costs.

I have therefore taken the liberty of preparing a draft judgment for your consideration. If you agree with its contents we shall dismiss the application on that basis.