Application of costs

[becky2585]

in reply to your last post also can I ask should the solicitor send me a detailed costs?

 

You can ask, but I wouldn't bother.

 

One of the first things the judge will ask is whether you have been provided with a detailed cost breakdown - if you haven't then the judge is more likely to throw their application out.

[steampowered]

Legal costs would normally only cover third party legal costs. If the company is represented by an in-house lawyer they might be awarded costs on that basis. There shouldn't be any award covering both internal and external costs.

[claireloupul]

Yes I represented myself, I just explained the background to my original claim and how it was a reasonable claim to bring and then explained how my ill health had meant that I couldn't proceed as I was in no fit state to prepare all of the documents and statements needed. I said that, rather than apply for a stay of proceedings and possibly waste the tribunal's time if my health didn't improve, I felt it was the right thing to withdraw as I was unable to say if or when I could proceed in the future. I reiterated that I felt my claim was valid and if circumstances were different I would have most certainly pursued it to a full hearing.One thing to note, get a copy of the other side's detailed cost claim as soon as possible. They should specify in detail the time spent by each named individual and their grade. Then using the following link, find your area and look at the rates for each grade and compare them against the rates being claimed for any big discrepancies. These are the rates approved by the County Court circuits for costs (they are a little out of date but not massively so - maybe your local CC can provide up to date info).....http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Guidance/guideline-hourly-rates-2010-v2.pdf

 

Wow thanks, did you get a detailed costs?

Only becky has said not to bother ( just trying to look at all avenues and find out what is best to do before I jump in ).

I dont think this is a in house solicitors but external as far as I can imagine.

Is Good to have your side as well as sweet Lorraine.

Can I ask where do you think Your friend went wrong or was it just a injustice?

 

Thanks

[claireloupul]

I was putting forward a hypothetical case this time.

 

However in both the hearings I dropped in on, that had costs applications, the judges didn't test/challenge any of the figures submitted by the respondent.

 

Thanks so the cases you dropped in on were the costs awarded?

 

Thanks

[Derwent]

Wow thanks, did you get a detailed costs?

Only becky has said not to bother ( just trying to look at all avenues and find out what is best to do before I jump in ).

 

 

Thanks

 

I think Becky meant don't bother contacting them for the costs as they are obliged to provide you with the detailed breakdown. If they don't send you it automatically then it puts you in a stronger position when the hearing happens if you haven't been given a copy in advance.

 

Also, don't be panicked into thinking that these hearings are formal courtroom affairs. Some can be but my costs hearing was just me, the judge and the other side's solicitor sitting around a conference table in a meeting room in the court building, it was very informal and whenever the solicitor started talking in legalese the judge would stop him and make him talk in layman's terms so I could understand.

[claireloupul]

Excellent Thank you.

So I just wait for the hearing.

Did the judge take into account your ability to pay or did he just throw the costs out?

[Derwent]

Excellent Thank you.

So I just wait for the hearing.

Did the judge take into account your ability to pay or did he just throw the costs out?

 

He just threw it out. As I said earlier, different courts have different thresholds for judgements - in criminal it's beyond reasonable doubt, in civil it's balance of probabilities and in the ET they apply a "reasonable belief" test. If you can demonstrate a reasonable belief that you had a genuine grievance then you should be ok.

 

Interestingly, I notice that the Apprentice winner who took Alan Sugar to tribunal won her costs hearing yesterday even though the actual tribunal said her case should never have been brought. The judge's comments about her belief that she had a case should reassure you a bit.....

 

http://metro.co.uk/2013/09/25/lord-sugar-to-sue-apprentice-winner-stella-english-for-damages-4110758/

[becky2585]

Yes - the costs threshold is very high.

 

Plus in the case of Alan Sugar I suspect the Judge may have realised his company could afford the legal bill!

 

(Not that it should have swayed their judgment, of course...)

[SweetLorraine]

If they are claiming BOTH types of costs (a costs order for the solicitors fees, and a preparation time order for the respondent company) then this cannot be recovered.

 

Good morning becky2585,

 

thanks once again for this info. and your time. I'm a bit slow on the uptake this morning I'm afraid; re your point above what is it that cannot be recovered by the respondent?

 

If their internal legal team have done a certain amount of preparatory work, and an external firm of solicitors has also done some work on the claim, then the respondent can only apply to recover the cost of one (the external/invoiced costs) and not the other (internal salaried employees who would already have been a cost to the employer - ergo, not an extra cost because of the claim)?

[claireloupul]

Yes - the costs threshold is very high.

 

Plus in the case of Alan Sugar I suspect the Judge may have realised his company could afford the legal bill!

 

(Not that it should have swayed their judgment, of course...)

 

this is all good to know.

I was watching that case with interest and o thought costs may have been awarded if I'm honest

[claireloupul]

Good morning becky2585,

 

thanks once again for this info. and your time. I'm a bit slow on the uptake this morning I'm afraid; re your point above what is it that cannot be recovered by the respondent?

 

If their internal legal team have done a certain amount of preparatory work, and an external firm of solicitors has also done some work on the claim, then the respondent can only apply to recover the cost of one (the external/invoiced costs) and not the other (internal salaried employees who would already have been a cost to the employer - ergo, not an extra cost because of the claim)?

 

Thanks SweetLorraine yeah I think is one or the other from what I gather from beckys posts.

[SweetLorraine]

Thanks SweetLorraine yeah I think is one or the other from what I gather from beckys posts.

 

Thanks claireloupul,

 

well that is useful to know for the future if it is the case, as is the £33 cap on hourly rates. It would be handy to know where these rules/directions/guidance notes come from so that we can monitor any changes.

[Derwent]

Thanks claireloupul,

 

well that is useful to know for the future if it is the case, as is the £33 cap on hourly rates. It would be handy to know where these rules/directions/guidance notes come from so that we can monitor any changes.

 

 

You can find all the info in the ET rules of procedure. For the £33 cap it is under Rule 79 (2) which states that it is currently £33 per hour and increases by £1 on 6th April each year....http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/1237/schedule/1/made

[Pusillanimous]

Clairloupol, losing a case is a different situation from postponing a hearing, so I should go fully prepared, just in case. Have they not asked you for a witness statement, nor sent you the respondent's schedule of costs?

 

Rather than focus on the respondent's figures, you are possibly better off working on your explanation for postponing the hearing, together with documentary evidence, if any.

 

Stella English had a bank statement showing she had just £200 in the bank and was about to claim JSA, so I should work on presenting a comprehensive breakdown of your means, or lack thereof, in the event costs get granted.

[claireloupul]

Clairloupol, losing a case is a different situation from postponing a hearing, so I should go fully prepared, just in case. Have they not asked you for a witness statement, nor sent you the respondent's schedule of costs?

 

( no they haven't should they?)

 

Rather than focus on the respondent's figures, you are possibly better off working on your explanation for postponing the hearing, together with documentary evidence, if any.

 

I do have all evidence of the postponement as my father was diagnosed with cancer and I will take the papers with me, just trying to look at this at all angles.

[steampowered]

A preparation time order is for costs incurred while a party is not legally represented. This is capped at 33 an hour under Rule 79.

 

A costs order is for external legal representation. There is no hourly rate cap, and the total amount which can be ordered without county court involvement is 20k. The Tribunal should take into account factors like whether a reasonable hourly rate is applied, whether someone senior was doing junior-level work etc., and it may take into account ability to pay.

 

Under Rule 75 (3), a Tribunal cannot make both types of order in the same case. If the Respondent is claiming external legal costs it cannot also claim the costs of an internal legal team.

 

Hope this helps. Although the most important thing to focus on is your reasons why you acted reasonably and why a costs order should not be granted at all.

[claireloupul]

A preparation time order is for costs incurred while a party is not legally represented. This is capped at 33 an hour under Rule 79.

 

A costs order is for external legal representation. There is no hourly rate cap, and the total amount which can be ordered without county court involvement is 20k. The Tribunal should take into account factors like whether a reasonable hourly rate is applied, whether someone senior was doing junior-level work etc., and it may take into account ability to pay.

 

Under Rule 75 (3), a Tribunal cannot make both types of order in the same case. If the Respondent is claiming external legal costs it cannot also claim the costs of an internal legal team.

 

Hope this helps. Although the most important thing to focus on is your reasons why you acted reasonably and why a costs order should not be granted at all.

 

Thank you for that

[Pusillanimous]

Interesting news story on this topic here:

 

Whistleblower' ordered to pay £4000 legal costs for her former ... WalesOnline Miss Clarke, who is also a trained barrister, said she would not appeal against all three decisions against her to the Employment Appeals Tribunal, in London.

See all stories on this topic »

[claireloupul]

Interesting news story on this topic here:

 

Whistleblower' ordered to pay £4000 legal costs for her former ... WalesOnline Miss Clarke, who is also a trained barrister, said she would not appeal against all three decisions against her to the Employment Appeals Tribunal, in London.

See all stories on this topic »

 

thanks for that.

in this case she had lost the original case and there were no costs awards.

she then proceeded to apeal and they awarded costs for her review case not her original case.

so there must of been a strong case of her acting unreasonable and maybe the judge warned her of that.

Also you can only appeal if there has been a error in the law not on your personal opinion.

Thats what I've been led to believe.

[steampowered]

Thanks for that link pusillanimous. I think the important point about that case is that costs were awarded because of the appeal. The statistics indicate that the risk of being ordered to pay costs on an ET claim is very low, and are generally reserved for cases where the Tribunal thinks the Claimant acted unreasonably or brought a hopeless case. But once you start appealing to the EAT I think the risk is much greater.

[SweetLorraine]

Well, we don't know all the ins and outs of this nurse's claim and the advice she had received, especially by the Tribunal Panel.

 

In her case, she lodged the EAT, whereas, in claireloupul's case the (lower court) hearing has been requested by the respondent.

[Pusillanimous]

thanks for that.

in this case she had lost the original case and there were no costs awards.

she then proceeded to apeal and they awarded costs for her review case not her original case.

so there must of been a strong case of her acting unreasonable and maybe the judge warned her of that.

Also you can only appeal if there has been a error in the law not on your personal opinion.

Thats what I've been led to believe.

 

For a review hearing you can bring up faulty reasoning. I am surprised they allowed her review hearing at all if there was nothing to appeal against.

[claireloupul]

For a review hearing you can bring up faulty reasoning. I am surprised they allowed her review hearing at all if there was nothing to appeal against.

 

very true and especially when there would of been a high. Risk. Maybe they have to allow it and maybe she was warned by the judge.

[SweetLorraine]

And there is the added seduction of being supported by a campaigning organisation. She may not have thought it all through..... if it all goes wonky, who is left to pick up the bill?

[claireloupul]

And there is the added seduction of being supported by a campaigning organisation. She may not have thought it all through..... if it all goes wonky, who is left to pick up the bill?

 

hi there I have my court case for the 25th October,

Any advice would be great!