Gold Panda Ltd Loses Appeal Over 'Unreasonable Conduct' Costs Order
Gold Panda Ltd's appeal against a costs order, stemming from attempts to avoid liability in an Employment Tribunal case, has been dismissed by the Employment Appeal Tribunal.
• public
Appeal Tribunal Upholds Costs Order Against Gold Panda Ltd
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has rejected an appeal by Gold Panda Ltd and Pandeli Ltd (the Appellants) against a costs order made in favour of Ms H O'Keefe (the Respondent) by an Employment Tribunal in Birmingham. The original tribunal had found the Appellants had acted unreasonably during proceedings.
Background of the Case
Ms O'Keefe initially brought claims of unfair dismissal, breach of contract, failure to pay statutory redundancy, unlawful deductions, failure to provide written reasons for dismissal, direct age discrimination and failure to inform or consult under TUPE regulations.
Following a hearing, some claims succeeded against Pandeli Ltd, and a TUPE related claim was successful against both Appellants. Other claims, including age discrimination and failure to pay redundancy, were dismissed.
Ms O'Keefe applied for costs under Rule 76(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, which allows a tribunal to award costs if a party has acted vexatiously, abusively, disruptively, or otherwise unreasonably in bringing or conducting the proceedings.
Tribunal's Reasoning for Costs Order
The Employment Tribunal awarded costs against the Appellants, finding that Gold Panda Ltd had made multiple attempts to remove itself from the Companies Register to avoid liability. It also found Pandeli Ltd acted unreasonably by failing to object to a potential strike-off and failing to notify the Claimant of their impending dissolution.
The tribunal inferred that these actions were attempts to avoid liability for Ms O'Keefe's complaints.
The Appeal
The Appellants conceded the behaviour was unreasonable but argued the tribunal erred in concluding it was part of the 'conduct of the proceedings'. They contended that actions making a judgment harder to enforce did not equate to conducting proceedings.
EAT's Decision
The EAT, led by The Hon. Lord Fairley, dismissed the appeal. The EAT held that actions intended to influence the course or outcome of proceedings by preventing the claimant from securing a judgment on the merits, could amount to unreasonable conduct of the proceedings.
The EAT agreed with the original tribunal's inference that the purpose was to frustrate Ms O'Keefe's ability to establish liability and bring the proceedings to a premature end, not simply to avoid financial penalties.
Therefore, the EAT found no error in law and upheld the costs order against Gold Panda Ltd.
Read the entire judgement here: Gold Panda Ltd & Anor v O’Keefe [2025] EAT 47
