Latest in Employment Law>Case Law>Ghosh v Nokia Siemens [2013] UKEAT 0125/12/2506
Ghosh v Nokia Siemens [2013] UKEAT 0125/12/2506
Published on: 20/09/2013
Issues Covered: Discrimination
Article Authors The main content of this article was provided by the following authors.
Legal Island
Legal Island
Background

The Claimant was dismissed and claimed Unfair Dismissal and race discrimination in the Employment Tribunal. Her Unfair Dismissal claim was upheld because of procedural irregularities but she was not awarded any compensation because she was held to be 100% responsible for her own dismissal. Her claims of race discrimination were dismissed in their entirety and costs were awarded against the Claimant in the sum of £5,000 on account of her pursuit of claims which constituted unreasonable conduct.

The Claimant appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal. The key question was, despite no express finding of dishonesty, was it perverse of the ET to make an award of costs because a Claimant had behaved unreasonably in making a large number of unstained allegations of discrimination.

The EAT dismissed the appeal and concluded that the ET's exercise of its discretion in ordering the Claimant to pay costs on the basis what it found to be her unreasonable conduct of the proceedings could not be faulted. http://bit.ly/18yq1wO

Continue reading

We help hundreds of people like you understand how the latest changes in employment law impact your business.

Already a subscriber?

Please log in to view the full article.

What you'll get:

  • Help understand the ramifications of each important case from NI, GB and Europe
  • Ensure your organisation's policies and procedures are fully compliant with NI law
  • 24/7 access to all the content in the Legal Island Vault for research case law and HR issues
  • Receive free preliminary advice on workplace issues from the employment team

Already a subscriber? Log in now or start a free trial

Disclaimer The information in this article is provided as part of Legal Island's Employment Law Hub. We regret we are not able to respond to requests for specific legal or HR queries and recommend that professional advice is obtained before relying on information supplied anywhere within this article. This article is correct at 20/09/2013