 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> G Baxter Ltd v Quinn [1994] UKEAT 1043_93_2403 (24 March 1994) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1994/1043_93_2403.html Cite as: [1994] UKEAT 1043_93_2403 |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
At the Tribunal
Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MUMMERY (P)
MRS P TURNER OBE
MISS D WHITTINGHAM
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
Revised
APPEARANCES
For the Appellants NO APPEARANCE BY
OR REPRESENTATION
ON BEHALF OF
THE APPELLANTS
For the Respondent NO APPEARANCE BY
OR REPRESENTATION
ON BEHALF OF
THE RESPONDENT
MR JUSTICE MUMMERY (PRESIDENT): On the 20 December last year, this Tribunal, after considering the relevant papers as a matter of urgency, allowed an appeal against a decision of the Industrial Tribunal not to vacate a hearing fixed for the 21 December. The Employment Appeal Tribunal directed that the matter should be relisted at the earliest possible date in the New Year, convenient to both parties.
In the Notice of Appeal the Appellant, G Baxter Ltd, set out numerous grounds of appeal. The Notice of Appeal, dated the 18 December, concluded that the Appellant would be seeking an order that the costs of and occasioned by the Appeal should be taxed and paid by the Secretary of State for Employment, or the proper officer for the London South Industrial Tribunal.
Today was fixed for the Hearing of the Application on costs. The Application is made by the Appellant in correspondence with the Tribunal. The Application is supported by the Solicitors for the Respondents. The position of the Industrial Tribunal is that a letter was written by the London South Regional office on the 11 February, stating that the Secretary of State would not accede to the request for costs.
The position is that both sides complain about the conduct of the Industrial Tribunal and seek to have the costs of the Appeal paid out of the funds of the Secretary of State, or of the Industrial Tribunal.
Neither side has attended the Hearing today. We therefore deal with the matter on the basis of the correspondence and other papers placed before us. We are unable to make the order sought against the Secretary of State or of the Industrial Tribunal. The rules relating to costs do not allow us to make such an order. The rules in force since the 16 December 1993, and applicable to this case, are the Employment Appeal Tribunal Rules 1993. The only provision in those Rules, relating to the power of this Tribunal to make orders for costs or expenses is Rule 34. That provides that where it appears to the Appeal Tribunal that any proceedings were unnecessary, improper or vexatious or that there has been any 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.
It is clear from the wording of those Rules that this Tribunal only has power to make an order for costs against a party to the proceedings. Neither the Secretary of State, nor the Industrial Tribunal at London South was ever a party to these proceedings. There is therefore no jurisdiction under the Rules to make the order which is sought. In none of the papers been submitted to this Tribunal have the Solicitors acting for the Appellants or the Respondents, identified any other power that this Tribunal has to make orders for costs.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has on previous occasions had cause to investigate whether the question of different orders for costs could be made against a person in respect of public funds wasted by their actions. The Tribunal has had to consider whether it was open to Employment Appeal Tribunal to make an order for costs against a party who had caused unnecessary expenditure on public funds, such as in asking for production of Chairman's notes, which are then not used or only used to a minimal extent on the hearing of the Appeal.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal decided that it had no power to award costs in favour of public funds against a party who had wasted public funds, as an order was that an order could only be made for payment of costs to another party. By similar reasoning, we conclude that we are not able to order costs to be paid out of public funds by someone such, as the Secretary of State, who was not a party to the proceedings.
The power to order costs is limited to the parties. The Tribunal will dismiss the application for costs. If the Appellant wishes to pursue this matter further, with the support of the Respondents, that must be done elsewhere, perhaps to the Secretary of State direct. We have no legal power to make the order requested.