GFTU Emplaw Emplaw Emplaw

Dunn v Estee Lauder Cosmetics Ltd - Costs order in EAT where proceedings conducted unreasonably [2013] EAT

Costs orders in EAT are rare but appropriate where proceedings are unnecessary, improper, vexatious or misconceived

This case concerns an application under Rule 34A of the Employment Appeal Tribunal Rules 1993. Those rules provide as follows:“(1) Where it appears to the Appeal Tribunal that any proceedings brought by the paying party were unnecessary, improper, vexatious or misconceived, or that there has been unreasonable delay or other unreasonable conduct in the bringing or conducting of proceedings by the paying party, that Appeal Tribunal may make a costs order against the paying party.”

The full content of this page is available to subscribers only. Please purchase a subscription if you feel this content will be of use to you.

Login or subscribe (includes subscription information) to access the full content of this page.