BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Todd and Others v. Concrete Repairs Ltd [2000] EAT 195_99_0704 (7 April 2000)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2000/195_99_0704.html
Cite as: [2000] EAT 195_99_0704, [2000] EAT 195_99_704

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]


BAILII case number: [2000] EAT 195_99_0704
Appeal No. EAT/195/99

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS
             At the Tribunal
             On 6 & 7 April 2000
             Judgment delivered on 7 April 2000

Before

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE BURTON

MS B SWITZER

MR B M WARMAN



MR TODD AND OTHERS APPELLANT

CONCRETE REPAIRS LTD RESPONDENT


Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

APPLICATION FOR COSTS

© Copyright 2000


    APPEARANCES

     

    For the Appellants MR PETER GROBEL
    (of Counsel)
    Messrs O H Parsons & Partners
    Solicitors
    3rd Floor
    Sovereign House
    212-224 Shaftesbury Avenue
    London
    WC2H 8PR
    For the Respondents MISS INGRID SIMLER
    (of Counsel)
    Messrs Masons
    Solicitors
    30 Aylesbury Street
    London
    EC1R 0ER


     

    MR JUSTICE BURTON: In relation to the Todd case we consider that the conduct of the appeal was unreasonable, either on the basis that it should not have been brought in light of paragraph 19 or that once it had been brought, it should have been discontinued at a relatively early stage. However, we conclude that there was a substantial amount of overlap between the two, that may or may not have been allowed for in the schedule that has been produced today, which will obviously in any event be reconsidered before any question of assessment. But the figure that we conclude is appropriate or the proportion that we think is appropriate is that the Appellants should pay two thirds of the assessed costs of the Respondent in the appeal.

    The figure that has floated, not surprisingly, into our mind, is the figure of £5,000. It seems to us that it would be sensible, in order to avoid an assessment, if that was the figure that was paid.

    So far as the Taylor appeal (EAT/268/99) is concerned we make no order for costs.


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2000/195_99_0704.html