• Robert Spicer

Employment tribunals: costs warning: new EAT case: Hussain v Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust



Risk warning

Case Hussain v Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust (2016) Morning Star, October 28, EAT

Facts During the hearing of a claim by H, the tribunal judge warned him that the apparent weaknesses in his case were such that a costs award might be made against him. After the case was adjourned, H lodged a complaint that the tribunal was biased. This was rejected. On the determination of the employer’s application for £100,000 costs, the tribunal noted that the employer had written to H three times pointing out the weaknesses in his claims and putting him on notice that it would seek costs against him. It awarded costs of 85 per cent of the total claimed. H appealed to the EAT.

Decision 1. Tribunals have to give guidance to parties as to how their case might be viewed and the risks they might be taking if they continue down a particular path.

  1. The tribunal had not made up its mind early on. It had simply warned H of the risks.

  2. The tribunal had not adequately explained why it had made an order for 85% of the costs. This point was remitted to the same tribunal.

0 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All


Case management decision Access to documents Case Kular v Atos IT Services UK Ltd (2021) UKEAT 0101/20/2901, Employment Appeal Tribunal Facts K claimed that a costs hearing was procedurally unfair. Un

Employment tribunals procedure: new case

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS ET1 Form Amendment Case Marrufo v Bournemouth Christchurch and Poole Council [2020] UKEAT 0103/20/0312, Employment Appeal Tribunal Facts M lodged a grievance which alleged bullyin

Welfare law in practice

Previously the poor were oppressed by the state, by landlords, by employers. Now they have to carry a powerful new burden on their already-straining backs, that of law, lawyers and all the attendant p