Solicitor's Costs Appeal Dismissed: Tribunal Properly Considered Ability to Pay
The EAT dismissed an appeal by a former managing partner of a solicitors' firm, upholding a costs order. The original tribunal properly considered ability to pay, despite dishonesty findings.
• public
Solicitor Loses Appeal Over Employment Tribunal Costs Order
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has dismissed an appeal by Mr. M Willis, a former managing partner of GWB Harthills LLP, against a costs order imposed by the Employment Tribunal. The EAT found that the original tribunal had properly considered Mr. Willis's ability to pay when ordering him to pay the respondents' costs, capped at £210,000.
Background: Dispute and Tribunal Claims
Mr. Willis, diagnosed with cancer in 2018, had a dispute with his firm regarding profit share payments. He brought two claims to the Employment Tribunal. While the first claim saw a liability judgment by consent, the second claim was dismissed. Following a remedy hearing for the first claim, the Employment Tribunal made no award to Mr. Willis and was highly critical of his conduct. Both parties applied for costs, leading to the contested costs order against Mr. Willis.
Grounds of Appeal: Ability to Pay and Impact on Family
Mr. Willis appealed the costs judgment on three grounds, primarily arguing that the Employment Tribunal failed to adequately consider his ability to pay, the potential impact of the order on his wife and children (including the possible sale of the family home), and wrongly considered a disputed £340,000 profit share in assessing his means.
EAT's Ruling: No Error in Law
His Honour Judge James Tayler dismissed all grounds of appeal. The EAT found that the Employment Tribunal did consider Mr. Willis's ability to pay, both as a factor in deciding whether to make a costs order at all and in determining the amount of the award.
The EAT acknowledged that the Employment Tribunal was highly skeptical of Mr. Willis's evidence, given prior findings about his dishonesty. It was deemed acceptable for the Tribunal to adopt a “reasonably rosy assessment” of Mr. Willis's likely future circumstances when considering his ability to pay, taking into account his share in the family home and potential profit share. Even though the sale of the home would impact his wife and children, the original tribunal was not required to do so because it was a valuable capital asset.
The EAT emphasized that tribunals have discretion regarding ability to pay and can consider a party's long-term financial prospects. It also reinforced that even if funds come from equity or an equity release, this could be considered as part of the ability to pay.
Ultimately, the EAT concluded that the Employment Tribunal's broad-brush assessment of ability to pay was justified by the specific circumstances of the case, and there was no error of law.
Read the entire judgement here: Mr M Willis v GWB Harthills LLP & Others
