Insights / News
Insights / News
On behalf of the Claimant, it was argued that the clear ‘direction of travel’ in the Civil Courts and Tribunal is increasingly to encourage alternative dispute resolution (ADR). The Respondent’s arguments included, that a distinction can been made between a mere refusal to engage in judicial mediation and the reasonableness of the decision to do so.
Having reviewed some of the key decisions in the Civil Courts on costs (paragraphs 53 – 60), the EAT (HHJ James Tayler), ruled that the ET had erred in law in holding that refusal to enter judicial mediation or assessment could not amount to unreasonable conduct. In particular that Rule 76 ETR does not place a limit on what types of conduct might be unreasonable. The EAT rejected the Respondents argument that a distinction can be made between mere refusal to engage in judicial mediation and the reasonableness of the decision to do so.
The EAT also ruled that the ET had erred in law in holding that the claim should be struck out because a witness had left the employment of the respondent which meant that the witness was “lost”, and a fair trial was no longer possible.
Both issues were remitted to the same ET for redetermination.
Martina Murphy successfully acted on behalf of the Appellant (Claimant).
Read the full judgment here: Ms Nkechi Leeks v University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2024] EAT 134
Martina Murphy practice focuses on employment, group litigation and professional discipline. Martina’s “advocacy is excellent”, as is her ability “to relate to clients and really understand their aims“. She regularly appears unled in the appellate courts including the EAT and the Court of Appeal and is often instructed directly on appeals. Martina is also the Chair of the Employment Law Bar Association (ELBA).
To find out more about Martina, contact Nicholas Levett on +44 (0)20 7427 4908.
News 22 Aug, 2024