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 first name (required)

    Your last name (required)

    Your email (required)

    Your telephone number (required)

    Brief details of your enquiry

    Testimonials

    4.79 Average

    277 Reviews

    Siriana B

    Thorough, efficient, and always available to answer my queries. It was a pleasure to deal with.Thanks

    Posted 3 days ago

    Anonymous

    Excellent speedy service

    Posted 3 days ago

    Robert

    Excellent service, very professional. would definitely use again.

    Posted 1 week ago

    Mary B

    I was very happy with the work Chris did for me. I believe with his help I secured a more favourable outcome both financially and in terms of clauses contained in the legal agreement I ultimately signed. I had utmost trust and confidence in the advice Chris provided throughout. Chris kept me informed at every stage and I found him very efficient at bringing matters to a conclusion without unnecessary delay.

    Posted 1 week ago

    Mark M

    I found Redmans very easy to work with. Mel was very responsive, her advice led to an improved settlement. . Recommended.!

    Posted 1 week ago

    Anonymous

    Fantastic service. I would recommend Redmans to anyone who needed a Solicitor. The communication was second to none and consistent clear guidance was given.

    Posted 2 weeks ago

    Anonymous

    Everyone I dealt with at Redmans were professional, empathetic & always responded promptly and helped make the transition as smooth & efficient as possible for me. If you need legal advice, don’t hesitate & contact the team.

    Posted 2 weeks ago

    Anonymous

    Sacha was incredibly helpful and professional. Timely and accurate advice at a time I most needed it. I was extremely impressed and grateful.

    Posted 2 weeks ago

    Sue W

    The people at Redmans talk to you with respect and make you feel like they take your situation personal. They clearly care and are extremely professional. I have recommended Redmans to many people.

    Posted 1 month ago

    Anonymous

    Redmans Solicitors were consistently prompt, efficient and professional from the start of my reaching out to them for support in relation to contentious negotiations of an employment matter that continued for almost two months resulting in a positive settlement agreement. Chris Hadrill was diligent, thorough, empathetic and objective in his advice and guidance, showing deep and broad knowledge of the law and legal processes plus extensive practical experience in handling complex matters, resulting in clear and pragmatic advice in ambiguous circumstances that resulted in a very good outcome. I fully recommend Chris Hadrill and Redmans Solicitors! I have made this review anonymous purely because of the confidentiality obligations in the settlement agreement concluded.

    Posted 2 months ago

    Michelle W

    Redmans solicitors provided legal support and advice for a settlement agreement. Excellent customer service, very professional. The senior associate solicitor kept me updated throughout the process, showed empathy and the agreement was signed-off / completed within the agreed timeline.

    Posted 2 months ago

    Mark W

    Redmans Solicitors were extremely professional and helpful! Chris Hadrill handled my case and was an amazing help! His guidance, advice and understanding to my redundancy settlement were always clear, concise and very helpful and I am very grateful to him, and glad I found Redmans to help with my settlement. I highly recommend them!

    Posted 2 months ago

    Alison M

    Very happy with the advice I received

    Posted 2 months ago

    Margaret A

    I found everything about the company to be extremely professional and efficient. During my initial contact with Chris, he listened well and was reassuring, so I felt confident that my case would be well handled. Caroline was excellent at explaining all the legal points and answering my questions, as well as being very supportive and understanding throughout the process. I would definitely recommend this company.

    Posted 2 months ago

    Sanja K

    Very efficient and professional service.

    Posted 2 months ago

    Anonymous

    I found the advice I was given by Redmans Solicitors to be clear and useful and found the solicitor on my case to be both knowledgeable and approachable.

    Posted 2 months ago

    Karen T

    Great service. Thank you.

    Posted 2 months ago

    Anonymous

    Excellent service from Chris & Mel Chin. The best outcome was achieved from the redundancy process. They were extremely thorough, listened carefully and acted swiftly on my behalf. I highly recommend Redmans Solicitors

    Posted 2 months ago

    Shanine M

    Excellent service, thank you so much!

    Posted 2 months ago

    Anonymous

    I found Caroline and Chris very Helpful and provided excellent service. Caroline especially provided great legal advice and made me feel at ease with the whole process. I would highly recommend them. Thank you!

    Posted 2 months ago

    Gayle B

    Excellent company very professional would definitely recommend

    Posted 2 months ago