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

    4.81 Average

    324 Reviews

    Mark Q

    Five Stars I was most impressed by the attention, courtesy, speed and above all, professionalism in dealing with my Settlement Agreement. I would certainly have no problem in recommending this firm to anyone in need of their services.

    Posted 21 hours ago

    Ade A

    I was surprisingly impressed by how Redmans Solicitors handle my case. From the moment I call them to the absolute end of my case, they always look after my best interest.

    Posted 2 days ago

    Malcolm P

    they were there when others were not

    Posted 1 week ago

    Anonymous

    Excellent service all the way through from start to finish. Really great support and guidance from the team, they secured the offer that I wanted. I can't recommend Redmans highly enough and will be sure to use their services again should the need arise.

    Posted 1 week ago

    Anonymous

    Efficient and quick service!

    Posted 3 weeks ago

    Karen B

    Quick response very helpful Issue raised dealt with very quickly

    Posted 3 weeks ago

    Carmen T

    Redmans give Great service and advice on reading contracts. They can explain all the solicitors jargon into words that you can understand. I received excellent service an I will use them again and again.

    Posted 3 weeks ago

    Anonymous

    Very grateful for Mel’s efforts in handling my case from start to finish which I would have found very stressful without it. She was very professional, friendly and we had a positive outcome. Highly recommend.

    Posted 1 month ago

    Nalin W

    Mel Chin was my Legal Executive when I engaged the services of Redmans Solicitors to help with a redundancy matter. She was incredibly approachable and professional from start to finish. Specially I have to mention regarding prompt reply to all my email queries, It was super quick. I would thoroughly recommend Mel Chin. Many Thanks

    Posted 1 month ago

    Anonymous

    I'd highly recommend Redmans Solicitors. Mel was very helpful and assisted me throughout my case.

    Posted 2 months ago

    Anonymous

    Sacha was very thorough and very helpful, with great advice on when to act and when to wait on my case.

    Posted 2 months ago

    Anonymous

    I have been very pleased with the support I got from Redmans Solicitors on my case with my employer. Caroline has always helped me to put things in perspective and showed me different scenarios ultimately to help me taking the right decision. She was very professional and always available when I needed, and at the same time also emphatic which I found also really important to establish a strong relationship. Will definitely recommend!

    Posted 2 months ago

    Anonymous

    Prompt and efficient response to my enquiries. Excellent negotiating skills with my employer which considerably improved the terms of my settlement agreement.

    Posted 2 months ago

    Anonymous

    Very quick and professional service , Rana was very helpful

    Posted 2 months ago

    James G

    Very professional, knowledgeable and kept me informed at every stage of my case. I would highly recommend Redmans.

    Posted 2 months ago

    Pravina P

    Chris was really good and help solve my issues with current company. I would recommend him to anyone.

    Posted 2 months ago

    Paul L

    Sacha was extremely helpful in my matter. I would not hesitate you use Sacha or Redmonds again. Everyone was very helpful.

    Posted 3 months ago

    Monique N

    I had Mel Chin helping me with a settlement and she was very professional and reliable throughout my case. Mel provided me with a good understanding of what was happening and gave suggestions on routes I could take. My case was resolved and closed promptly although the opposing side were very difficult to deal with. A very big thank you to Mel and Chris.

    Posted 3 months ago

    Jackie C

    My first ever experience needing the services of a solicitor; cannot speak highly enough of Mel and Chris’s personable, reassuring and straight to the point advice in dealing with my settlement agreement. They put me at ease during an extremely stressful time. I am equally as happy with the outcome, as l am their professional services.

    Posted 3 months ago

    ""

    Really happy with the service. All very efficient. Mel rattled through things very fast, however was great whenever I needed to stop and ask a question! Would definitely return to Redmans if I ever needed Legal advice.

    Posted 3 months ago

    Peter F

    Very helpful and clear advice, would highly recommend.

    Posted 3 months ago