, , , , , , ,

In a seemingly bullish mood, the case of Vaughan v London Borough of Lewisham has proved very costly to the former worker who took their former employer to a Tribunal and lost..

In three sets of proceedings culminating in a 20-day hearing with all claims being rejected (misconceived) the tribunal required the claimant to pay one third of the respondent’s costs – which came to a whopping £260,000.

On appeal to  the costs decision was upheld.

I should mention that EAT raised in the course of their argument the question whether the Tribunal could or should have taken into account the possibility that the Appellant might recover substantial compensation in her outstanding claims.was weak, but the EAT took the view that these protestations were irrelevant to a soundly made decision. For completeness, the claimant had argued that there were no prior deposit orders or indications from the tribunal that the claim