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