Want to talk to an expert employment law solicitor?

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

In the case of Sykes v Wright & ors UKEAT/0270/15/BA the Employment Appeal Tribunal (“EAT”) upheld an Employment Tribunal’s award of wasted costs against a representative that the Tribunal had found had poorly prepared for a hearing.

The background facts of Sykes v Wright & ors

Mr Wright made a claim in the Employment Tribunal for unfair dismissal, race discrimination, and harassment against his employer, Sompo Japan Nipponkoa Insurance Company of Europe Limited (“Nipponkoa”). Mr Sykes represented Mr Wright in that claim.

The claim came to an Employment Tribunal hearing in October 2014 and Mr Wright’s claims were dismissed in their entirety. The Tribunal, in its judgment, criticised Mr Wright for apparently failing to properly prepare for the hearing. Nipponkoa made an application for costs against Mr Wright and an application for wasted costs against Mr Sykes, and a hearing was listed for 19 February 2015 in order to consider the application for costs (“the Costs Hearing”).

Prior to the Costs Hearing taking place Nipponkoa reached a compromise agreement (now known as a “settlement agreement”) with Mr Wright. As a result of that settlement it withdrew its costs application against Mr Wright, but continued with the application for wasted costs against Mr Syes.

The Costs Hearing took place on 19 February 2015 and both parties submitted written submissions. The Employment Tribunal decided, for reasons of time, to not produce its judgment at that hearing but that the Tribunal would meet on 17 April 2015 without the parties attending but their having been given an opportunity to submit further written representations. Nipponkoa’s solicitors subsequently sent written representations to the Employment Tribunal (on 14 April 2015) but Mr Sykes did not.

On 16 April 2015 Mr Sykes sent written representations to the Employment Tribunal, stating that he had not received Notice of the the hearing and that he had had no time to respond to Nipponkoa’s representations. Mr Sykes made an application for postponement of the hearing scheduled for 17 April 2015 on this basis.

On 17 April 2015 the Employment Tribunal considered Mr Sykes’ application but decided not to postpone the hearing for six reasons, among them: that Mr Sykes had been in attendance at the hearing when the parties had agreed not to attend the further hearing to save costs and when dates ere set; that he had been sent the Orders on 25 February 2015 that had recovered the scheduled hearing on 17 April 2015; and that this otherwise would be the second time on which the Tribunal had had to postpone consideration of the costs issue.

The Employment Tribunal hearing to consider the wasted costs application took place on 17 April 2015 and the Tribunal decided to make a Wasted Costs Order in the sum of £2,000 against Mr Sykes, based on his conduct at the hearing in October 2014 and his failure to prepare properly for such. 

Mr Sykes appealed against the judgment of the Employment Tribunal on the following bases:

  1. That the Employment Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to make a wasted costs order against him as Mr Wright had entered into a settlement agreement with Nipponkoa (thereby, he argued, also settling the costs issue in respect of him) (“Ground 1”)
  2. That the Employment Tribunal had erred in its judgment as its conclusions were inadequately reasoned and thus not ‘Meek compliant’ (“Ground 2”)
  3. That the Employment Tribunal had acted procedurally unfairly by not giving him an opportunity to the Respondent’s submissions (dated 14 April 2015) (“Ground 3”)

The decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (“EAT”) rejected Mr Sykes’ appeal for the following reasons:

Ground 1 – that the settlement agreement with Mr Wright had also settled any application for costs against Mr Sykes

The EAT held that there was no merit to this argument: the principle of res judicata did not apply as the issues relating to the threatened application for costs against Mr Sykes and the separate threatened application for costs against Mr Wright were of a different nature, against different parties, and involving different causes of action. The settlement agreement that Mr Wright had entered in to did not therefore, as a matter of law, protect Mr Sykes against an application for costs.

Ground 2

The EAT held that the Employment Tribunal’s conclusions were adequately reasoned and that the Tribunal was aware of the legal principles that it had to apply. The EAT held that the Tribunal’s decision to make an order for wasted costs was a “commonsense view” based upon the relevant facts and law.

Ground 3

The EAT held that there had been no procedural unfairness in the Employment Tribunal’s decision (and, in particular, no breach of the right to a fair hearing in Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms as set out in Schedule 1 to the Human Rights Act 1998).

The Employment Appeal Tribunal therefore dismissed the appeal.

Our lawyers’ comments on this case

Chris Hadrill, partner in the employment team at Redmans, commented on the case: “This case shows that parties to litigation must be careful to ensure whether, if a settlement agreement is signed, their particular matter is also covered by the settlement agreement. In this particular case the Employment Appeal Tribunal found that the signing of a settlement agreement by one party to a case (Mr Wright) had not covered a cause of action relating to a third party (Mr Sykes).”

The decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal in Sykes v Wright & ors UKEAT/0270/15/BA 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).

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

    274 Reviews

    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 day ago

    Mark M

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

    Posted 3 days 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 5 days 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 1 week 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 1 week 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 3 weeks 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 1 month 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 1 month 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 1 month 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

    Alex K

    Redmans provided an excellent service, timely and effective. Will definitely recommend.

    Posted 2 months ago

    Anonymous

    Great job done on my employment law

    Posted 2 months ago

    Dominica S

    Caroline & Chris were very prompt and efficient.Very happy with the service and will definitely recommend Redmans Solicitor to everyone !

    Posted 2 months ago