[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Brandland Ltd v. Burman [2003] UKEAT 0549_03_2010 (20 October 2003) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2003/0549_03_2010.html Cite as: [2003] UKEAT 0549_03_2010, [2003] UKEAT 549_3_2010

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant
For the Respondent


 


JUDGE D SEROTA QC:

1. I have an application for costs from Mr Burman. The Appellant (Brandland Ltd) has not taken this appeal seriously. It failed to submit its bundle, chronology and skeleton argument in accordance with the EAT's directions and then applied to withdraw the appeal two days before the hearing because of the "cost of trying to produce an 'acceptable bundle' ".
2. I do bear in mind that the award was for £360.77 in respect of an alleged wrongful deduction from wages. Mr Burman was entitled to an allowance of £15.00 per day for food and beverages when staying in hotels whilst on the employer's business. He exceeded this amount. He charged his expenditure to Brandland's account, and the bill was settled directly by the employer with the hotel. The employer then deducted the amount of the excess payment from Mr Burman's wages. The Employment Tribunal considered that the deduction was unlawful and made the award in Mr Burman's favour.
3. Brandland Ltd was given permission to appeal and the case raised a fairly arguable point of law.
4. I regard Brandland's conduct in abandoning the proceedings at the last minute as unreasonable within the meaning of rule 33 of the Employment Appeal Tribunal Rules and I am prepared to order it to pay costs.
5. Mr Burman was represented by his daughter who is a trainee solicitor. She claims various out of pocket expenses in the sum of £10.72 that I am minded to award. She also claims £30 in respect of an application to enforce the Tribunal's award in the Portsmouth County Court. I do not know what this sum represents and I will not allow it. Ms Burman also seeks to recover four hours of her time at the rate of £80.0 per hour.
6. Mr Burman was a litigant in person. He may only recover costs as such and those costs are limited to £9.25 per hour; see PD 48 para 52.4. In the circumstances I allow four hours at £9.25 (£37.00). I assess costs therefore in the total sum of £47.72