Want to talk to an expert employment law solicitor?

You'll receive a callback from a specialist within an hour

In the case of Mr Brooks v Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust UKEAT/0246/18/JOJ the EAT considered whether the Employment Tribunal had been correct to make a costs order of £170,000 against a Claimant.

The facts in Mr J Brooks v Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust

Mr Brooks, (the ‘Claimant’), was employed by Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust (the ‘Respondent’) as a Consultant plastic surgeon.  From between April 2011 to October 2014, the Claimant raised a number of complaints with the Respondent about staffing levels and others matters relating to the department he worked in which, in his view, had consequences for the health and safe of patients.

The Claimant claimed to have made a total of 18 protected disclosures within the meaning of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and as a result of making those disclosures, he was subjected to a number of detriments by the Respondent.  He went on the take a claim in the Employment Tribunal (the ‘ET’) for whistleblowing.

The decision of the Employment Tribunal

The Claimant’s claims were considered over the course of a 27-day hearing.  Although the ET found that the Claimant had made a number of protected disclosures and had suffered a number of detriments, it concluded that the Claimant failed to establish causation between the two.  In coming to that conclusion, the ET was influenced by, in particular, draft correspondence which the Claimant had written before the first of his alleged protected disclosures. That correspondence suggested that the matters of which he was complaining were very similar to issues he had raised previously.  The ET held that that document showed very clearly that from the Claimant’s perspective, he was already being subjected to the kind of behaviour he was complaining about and that there was not a ‘sea change’ after he started making the protected disclosures as he had alleged.

This led to considerable doubt as to the reliability of the Claimant’s evidence.  The ET held that he was distorting the truth in relation to a central theme of his evidence and was unable to show causation between the protected acts and the detriments he was alleging.  As a result, his whistleblowing claims were dismissed in their entirety.

The Respondent made an application for costs following the ET’s dismissal of the Claimant’s claims and the Claimant resisted the application on the grounds that his claim was arguable and not one which had no reasonable prospects of success.

However, the Respondent was successful in their application.  The ET held that any reasonable and objective person looking at the evidence which was available to the Claimant at the start of process would have concluded that the claims had no reasonable prospects of success and therefore pursuing them was unreasonable conduct on the part of the Claimant. The Claimant was ordered to pay the Respondent’s legal costs totalling £170,000.

The Claimant appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (“EAT”).

The decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal

Rule 76 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013 states that an ET can make a costs order where a party or their representative has acted ‘vexatiously, abusively, disruptively or otherwise unreasonably’ or where a claim or response had: ‘no reasonable prospect of success’.  Rule 84 allows an ET take into account a party’s ability to pay when making a costs order.

The Claimant appealed the costs order on the following grounds:

  1. The ET’s conclusion that the Claimant’s claim had no reasonable prospects of success was perverse.
  2. The ET’s conclusion that the Claimant acted unreasonably in pursuing the claim was perverse.
  3. The ET’s decision to award costs was perverse in circumstances where it was found that the Claimant did not act in a deliberately dishonest manner.
  4. The ET had erred in failing to take into account public policy considerations applicable to NHS whistle-blowers and the need to avoid deterring them from making complaints.
  5. The ET had taken irrelevant matters into account.
  6. It was not clear why the ET concluded that the Claimant’s claim had no reasonable prospect of success.

The EAT held that the ET’s decision to award a costs order could not be categorised as perverse.  They had been entitled to find that his entire case was founded on his unreasonable conduct in distorting and embellishing evidence in relation to the 3 central pillars of his claim and it ought to have been clear to the Claimant that the critical elements of causation, the establishment of which was necessary in order to succeed, could not be established.  It was therefore open to the ET to conclude that the Claimant had proceeded with his claim unreasonably. 

With regards to the Claimant not acting in a deliberately dishonest matter, the EAT held that whilst that may have been true, the proper test for the ET was not whether there had been dishonest conduct on the part of the Claimant, but whether there had been unreasonable conduct in bringing proceedings, which was an objective test.  The EAT held that the ET were entitled to find that the Claimant had acted unreasonably.   

The Claimant’s public policy arguments were dismissed by the EAT as having no merit due to the fact that there is nothing in the ET Rules which provides for special treatment of whistle-blowers, whether working in the public sector or elsewhere.  Finally, with regards to taking irrelevant matters into account (the NHS’s ‘stretched resources’ had been referred to by the ET), the EAT held that the reference made by the ET did not disclose an automatic error of law on the part of the ET.  It was clear that they had made the costs order on the basis of the Claimant’s not insignificant means and the reference could not be said to render the ET’s decision as to costs unsafe.

The Claimant’s appeal was dismissed.  Ultimately the Claimant failed to demonstrate that the matters he was relying on crossed the high threshold of perversity.

Our solicitors’ views on the case of Mr Brooks v Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust

Sacha Barrett, a Senior Associate in the employment department at Redmans, made the following comments on the case: “This case highlights that it is not a pre-condition of a costs order that a party act dishonestly, merely unreasonably, which is an objective rather than subjective test.  In addition, even where a party can establish 2 out of the 3 central elements to a claim, the bringing of the claim can still be found to have been unreasonable where there is a complete failure to establish the third.’

The decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal in Mr Brooks v Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust UKEAT/0246/18/JOJ can be found here.

About

Redmans Employment Team deal with employment matters for both employers and employees, including drafting employment contracts and policies, advising employers and employees on compromise agreements, handling day-to-day HR issues, advising on restructures, and handling Employment Tribunal cases for both employers and employees Call 020 3397 3603 to speak to one of the members of our employment team or email us on enquiries@redmans.co.uk. Redmans have offices in Richmond, Chiswick, Hammersmith, Fulham, Kingston, Wimbledon, Ealing, Kings Cross and Marylebone (meetings strictly by appointment only).

Tagged with →  

Want to talk to an expert employment law solicitor?

You'll receive a callback from a specialist within an hour

Share →

Our awards

Request a callback

Your name

Your email

Your telephone number

Contact us

Please feel free to discuss your own position and concerns. Contact your nearest office on:

T: 020 3397 3603
E: enquiries@redmans.co.uk
W: www.redmans.co.uk

Testimonials

4.78 Average

138 Reviews

Richard O

Chris at Redmans is my go-to legal expert when it comes to employee-related matters. His depth of knowledge, experience and considered approach to problems and their solutions is highly valuable. I cannot recommend Redmans highly enough.

Posted 2 days ago

Rory Y

They provide me with timely and clear advice!

Posted 2 days ago

Steven C

Redmans handled my settlement with my employer quickly, decisively and to a standard that I was very happy with. I would in similar circumstances contract them again

Posted 2 days ago

Deepthi K

Transparent. Clear communication. Prompt reply’s. Saves lot of time. Very satisfied.

Posted 2 days ago

Anonymous

Chris and Sacha did a fantastic job and negotiated a significant better settlement agreement

Posted 2 days ago

Dino D

I did get a very swift and god service from Redmans

Posted 2 days ago

Stephanie H

Clear, prompt, effective support from Chris which has been very much appreciated. Thank you again.

Posted 1 week ago

Anonymous

I would highly recommend Redmans Solicitors, the team were very friendly and my case was dealt with professionally and efficiently. Thank you!

Posted 1 month ago

Shane M

Very professional, welcome advice at a crucial time. Always available and reasonable cost.

Posted 1 month ago

Anonymous

My case was relatively straight-forward. But even so, working with Redmans was easy, quick, professional & clear. Many thanks

Posted 1 month ago

Anonymous

The team were very helpful and answered all my questions regarding my redundancy. Initially I had a call with one of the representatives who escalated my request to a suitable employment solicitor. We arranged a call to discuss the settlement and she helped answer all my questions. We then mainly contacted through email which helped resolve the settlement quickly and convently. Thanks for all the help.

Posted 1 month ago

Djaouida T

You have good communication.

Posted 1 month ago

Anonymous

Fast and professional. A highly recommended company for employment related issues.

Posted 1 month ago

Anonymous

Very professional service.

Posted 1 month ago

Brittany

I was very grateful for Redmans to treat my case with respect and discretion. At the time, I was very new to London and it was meaningful to have someone on my side and win the case for me. Without any doubt, I would definitely recommend Redmans Solicitors to anyone who is in need of it.

Posted 9 months ago

Jake L

Chris is very professional and calm. Very attentive and patient, been a positive experience having Chris represent me, and would recommend him.

Posted 10 months ago

Anonymous

Excellent service. It was a pleasure to work with Chris H, who is brilliant at what he does and very efficient. Their Senior Associate Rana T. is also very knowledgeable and resolves any queries speedily and efficiently. My issue could unfortunately not be resolved, but that was due to my employer and not the firm. Redmans however did all they could. I would definitely recommend them.

Posted 10 months ago

Anonymous

Very pleasant and quick to deal with. Mnay thanks.

Posted 11 months ago

Anonymous

Easy to get hold of. Quick.

Posted 11 months ago

Owen J

Very helpful, efficient service.

Posted 11 months ago

Anonymous

I am very lucky that I worked with Mr. Chris Hadrill and he managed my case very progressively with an analytical approach and trustfully. Of course with a very positive result. I strongly recommend Mr. Hadrill to any one seeking for a successful result from a highly qualified solicitor.

Posted 11 months ago