Table of contents
- Impact of this case
- Relevant background law
- The facts and the ET decision
- The EAT judgment
Article summary
Where the employment tribunal exercises its power to make a costs order relating to representation, this may include the cost of in-house legal representation: (1) it has long been the position that such costs are recoverable, (2) there is no sensible reason for the definition of ‘legally represented’ in the 2004 Rules of Procedure if it was not to enable a costs order to be made in favour of a qualified employed legal representative, (3) it is a normal and permissible use of language to describe the costs of an in-house legal department as a charge or expense upon the employer, (4) there was no legislative intention when enacting the 2004 Rules to change the established position as regards the costs of in-house legal representatives. EAT: Ladak v DRC Locums.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial