Mr Bright had attempted to bring a case against Group Taxibus on the grounds of unfair dismissal and sex discrimination. The unfair dismissal claim was withdrawn on the basis that Mr Bright was not an employee of Group Taxibus, and the sex discrimination claim was not pursued.

Mr Bright only found himself before an Employment Judge for consideration of an application for costs. The Judge ruled that Mr Bright’s claims were unreasonable and misconceived within the definition of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2004 Rule 40.

Mr Bright was ordered to pay £5,000 in costs to Group Taxibus. Mr Bright subsequently appealed the decision, claiming that the Judge had erred in law by not stating if she had considered his ability to pay when decided whether she should make the costs order and in determining the value of the costs themselves.

The appeal Judge noted that although the costs judgement did make reference to Mr Bright’s income, it made no mention his expenses or liabilities. When asked, Mr Bright admitted that he had not given the original judge any information on the matter: neither had he referred her to Jilley v Birmingham & Solihull Mental Health NHS Trust and Ors, which demonstrate that the tribunal has the discretion to consider ability to pay, but must either explain its findings on the matter or explain why did not take the information into account.

The Judge determined that the case authority and the evidence of expenses and liabilities - on which Mr Bright’s appeal now hinged, despite not being available to the original judge - constituted a new point of law which would require further evidence.

Further, the Judge ruled that there were no “compelling reasons” or “exceptional circumstances” why he should be permitted to raise these new points on appeal. Accordingly, Mr Bright’s appeal was dismissed and the costs order stood.

Technorati Tags: employment judge, Employment Law, Sex Discrimination, Unfair Dismissal