The Employment Tribunal’s ability to sanction a vexatious employee with a cost order
Employment Tribunals generally do not order the unsuccessful litigant to pay their legal costs of their opponents. A cost order is a rare occurrence and normally when awarded only a modest payment. Costs orders are normally reserved for vexatious litigants whose bad conduct in the eyes of the Employment Tribunal is outstandingly appalling and has wasted the time of the Employment Tribunal and the employer.
Legal costs
The case of Tan v Copthorne Hotels serves as a stern reminder to vexatious litigants about the Employments Tribunals ability to make a considerable order for legal costs.
The claimant was employed as the senior vice president of procurement by the Copthorne Hotels Group. After five years’ service he was made redundant. This triggered the claimant to sue the employer under several grounds. The list included unpaid wages and harassment, unfair dismissal, whistle blowing, discrimination on the grounds of race, age, sex, sexual orientation and his marriage status. Unfortunately for Mr Tan all his claims were entirely dismissed, and his former employers asked for and were granted a legal cost order. The Employment Tribunal has ordered Mr Tan, to pay his former employers over £430,000 in a decision on costs.
Before the main hearing the Employment Tribunal had struck out several of his claims and he also had withdrawn a few of his claims. Both sides had legal representatives and the hearing lasted a full nine days. Mr Tans legal team submitted over 3000 pages of documents and his witness statement was 61 pages and included irrelevant evidence and claims that he had previously withdrawn.
The Employment Tribunal criticised Mr Tan after he admitted making hundreds of hours of covert recordings of other staff in the workplace and during an occupation health assessment. The Employment Tribunal criticised his tactics as a scattergun approach. His conduct was pronounced by the Employment Tribunal to be deceitful and underhanded and it concluded that this behaviour would have destroyed trust and confidence in him.
Hearing
The Employment Tribunal refused to accept any of Mr Tans claims. The ex-employer argued all their legal costs should be paid by Mr Tan and there was a separate cost hearing to determine this point.
The Employment Tribunal ordered Mr Tan pay the ex-employer’s costs which were assessed as the sum of £432,001.85. Unfortunately, the Employment Tribunal did not disclose in its judgement how it came to make this decision, but the order does take in to account that Mr Tan was on a particularly high salary.
The Employment Tribunal demonstrated it can order costs where a person has behaved an unreasonable, disruptive, abusive and vexatious manner. The court will consider the individuals’ earnings, saving and assets when making the award of costs. Where a claim lacks merit the Employment Tribunal can order the individual to pay a deposit order before the trail.
Employer should take advice at an early stage so the merits of the case can be considered, and any difficult dispute can be correctly and effectively handled. This will place the employer in a better position to defend the claim and where possible argue a cost order for an employee’s unreasonable conduct.
If you need any assistance or further information then please contact Quest on 01455 852028.
