interlaw.org.uk

Marker down re costs in the Employment Tribunal

One of the most frustrating aspects of the current Employment Tribunal system for employers is the general “no costs “rule for claims made in the Tribunal.

This, combined with the fact that there are no court fees payable for Tribunal claims (unlike almost all other court services in England & Wales) has meant that many employees and ex-emp0loyees have felt that they have nothing to lose by bringing a claim, even if only motivated by spite or perceived revenge.

Bearing in mind employers can easily rack up costs of thousands defending any employment claim, many opt for making payouts, often via compromise agreements, as the “lesser of 2 evils”.

The employment tribunal does have discretion to award legal costs against either party based on abusive, vexatious or disruptive behavior, although historically such orders have been rare, but perhaps they are now on the increase.

In a recent case, costs awarded against an employee were awarded and these have now been assessed and moderated at a staggering £100,000.00, which is way above the usual limit of £10,000.00 (again the Tribunal has discretion to allow more than this basic limit).

Is this just a one-off case or does it herald a new approach by the Tribunals which will stem the ever increasing tide of tribunal claims ?

Can News Of the World employees sue for stigma ?

In addition to many interesting (and disturbing) aspects of the current News of the World hacking scandal, interesting employment and contract law issues arise relating to the many journalists who have lost their jobs with the sudden closure of the publication.

Employment solicitors advise that should any of the journalists struggle to secure new jobs, they may argue that this failure is related to their professional reputation being impugned by association.

A 1997 House of Lords ruling provides a little known legal basis for claiming damages, based on breach of contract and in particular, a breach of the duty of mutual trust and confidence inherent in all employment contracts. However, when the judgment was given in the 1997 case, the Judge did state that these types of claims, due to the myriad reasons a prospective employee might not succeed with a job application, would be “inherently difficult to prove”.