Forum Home → Discussion → Decision making and appeals → Thread
Costs
Costs in tribunals are not usually awarded unless The tribunal may exercise its discretion to make a costs order in a number of circumstances. For example, the tribunal has a discretion to order costs where it is of the opinion that the party (in bringing the proceedings) or the party or their representative (in conducting proceedings) has acted vexatiously, abusively, disruptively or otherwise unreasonably, or that the bringing or conducting of proceedings has been misconceived and the tribunal considers that it would be appropriate for the paying party to pay costs to the receiving party in those circumstances. If costs are awarded the civil procedure rules apply and to that end see CPR 46.5 & 7.
You will find that by making a threat of this early on, many cases will settle a lot quicker!
[ Edited: 23 Jul 2014 at 09:54 am by Bryan R ]Upper Tribunal only? Rule 10 appears to preclude the awarding of costs by FTTs.
Being as Bryan’s at Tribunal this afternoon I will say this…
Employment Tribunal
edit To be fair to Bryan; it’s less than 1% of ETs that make a costs order so it’s a good result.
[ Edited: 23 Jul 2014 at 01:42 pm by Dan_Manville ]Yes, some tribunals such as the property, tax and social care tribunals (I haven’t looked at employment) have powers to award costs in defined circumstances. Tribunals dealing with social security benefits and war pensions have no such powers and are specifically excluded from doing so under their own rules.
It wasn’t easy to get the costs and I only asked at the preliminary hearing case once I knew it was an accepted case. And I asked for them to be considered.
Why wont FTT give costs as a question? In some tribunals yes in others no. I simply don’t understand the logic.
It wasn’t easy to get the costs and I only asked at the preliminary hearing case once I knew it was an accepted case. And I asked for them to be considered.
Why wont FTT give costs as a question? In some tribunals yes in others no. I simply don’t understand the logic.
In certain Tribunals you can expect representation; for instance the ET has a lot of Union involvement and a wide discretion whether to apply them. It’s a preventative measure against vexatious claims too.
The FtT (SEC) has mostly unrepresented appellants who don’t know what they’re doing so prevention from securing costs against them means they’re not discouraged from appealing.
The FtT (SEC) has mostly unrepresented appellants who don’t know what they’re doing so prevention from securing costs against them means they’re not discouraged from appealing.
Or, at least, that’s how things are currently. Watch this space….
It seems to me that rule 10 seems terribly arbitrary and dictatorial !
Natural justice and human rights suggest to me that there must be situations where in the interests of justice and fairness there must be discretion. I can’t recall seeing anywhere else such a dogmatic rule!
It seems to me that rule 10 seems terribly arbitrary and dictatorial !
Natural justice and human rights suggest to me that there must be situations where in the interests of justice and fairness there must be discretion. I can’t recall seeing anywhere else such a dogmatic rule!
Be careful what you wish for Bryan. As 1964 alludes to, IDS has already been suggesting that charges should be considered for lodging appeals to benefits tribunals like they have been applied to Employment Tribunals. I’m sure you have seen, like I have, clients’ appeals that have been done unassisted to Tribunal. Many of these fundamentally misunderstand the law and could easily be seen as frivolous or vexatious by a cost awarding judge. Any suggestion that costs orders could be made against claimants at tribunal would be disastrous for the appeals process and would be a massive disincentive for any benefit claimant to progress their appeal.
The current system is not perfect but it is free and reasonably easily accessible for anyone who wishes to seek redress and I think that we should do everything in our power to keep it that way.
In a nutshell, Billy.
Agree with you Billy wholeheartedly. Vexatious litigation is often brought by the DWP, regardless of their merits, solely to harass or subdue an claimants. Many of their appeal writers and Decision Makers bring claims which ultimately are vexatious and wrong. What are the figures for challenging a decision? More in favour of clients if memory serves well
Perhaps then there should be a process similar to the ET whereby there are pre-proceedings and a Judge at an early stage can either allow or throw out claims by either party.
“Perhaps then there should be a process similar to the ET whereby there are pre-proceedings and a Judge at an early stage can either allow or throw out claims by either party.”
It’s important to remember that these are not proceedings in private law so parties are not making or defending claims. Rights of access to the courts in private law cases have to be subject to strict rules if only to stop citizens pursuing frivolous vendettas against each other thus clogging up the courts’ time and wasting taxpayers’ money.
Statutory appeals against decisions of public bodies enshrine fundamental public law rights of challenge to decisions of the State to prevent arbitrariness and abuse in decision making. It’s only relatively recently that social security appeals have been subject to more detailed legislative control. This has been primarily to do with the wider reform of the judiciary within the constitutional framework of the State rather than any impulse to drown them in a welter of regulation.
The tribunal already has a power to strike an appeal out under rule 8(3)(c) if it has no reasonable prospects of success. This power is, rightly, used sparingly. To give the tribunal a power to prevent the respondent (i.e. the DWP) from defending the case would breach the common law rule of fairness and would be something that very few would support.
Points accepted. I just find rule 10 so annoying especially when client has waited for a whole year or more and then tribunal sits and dismisses DWP case in 2 minutes. This has happened all to often of late.