Tribunal Overturns Costs Order Due to Legal Error in Race Discrimination Case
An Employment Appeal Tribunal has overturned a costs order against a claimant, Mr. J Samra, after finding that the original tribunal made a legal error in its assessment.
• public
Costs Order Against Claimant Overturned
In a recent judgment, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has overturned a costs order made against Mr J Samra, the claimant, in a case against his former employer, The London Borough of Islington. The initial employment tribunal had ordered Mr Samra to pay £15,000 in costs after dismissing his claims of race discrimination.
Key Issues in the Appeal
The appeal, heard by His Honour Judge Barklem, centred on whether the original tribunal had properly considered the legal principles surrounding costs orders. The EAT found that the tribunal had failed to adequately assess whether Mr Samra knew, or should have known, that his claim had no reasonable prospect of success.
The EAT highlighted that the original tribunal acknowledged Mr Samra genuinely believed in his claims of race discrimination. However, it did not fully consider whether he should have reasonably known his case lacked objective merit. This failure to address a crucial question constituted a clear error of law.
The Tribunal's Reasoning
The initial tribunal had based its costs order on the grounds that Mr Samra's claims had no reasonable prospect of success. They also noted that he had brought and pursued the proceedings unreasonably, presenting claims of race discrimination without sufficient evidence. The EAT, however, found this reasoning to be flawed, as it did not adequately consider Mr Samra's genuine belief in his case.
Impact of the Decision
The EAT has remitted the case to a fresh tribunal for reconsideration. This new tribunal will need to properly assess whether Mr Samra knew, or should have known, that his claim had no reasonable prospect of success. The EAT also noted that the original tribunal should have used the wording “in all the circumstances of the case” rather than “in the interests of justice” when deciding whether to award costs.
Means and Proportionality
The EAT also raised concerns about the original tribunal's analysis of Mr Samra's means. While the tribunal noted that Mr Samra was employed, a homeowner, and had accrued a pension, it did not conduct a detailed analysis of his financial situation to determine whether the £15,000 costs order was proportionate.
Guidance from Case Law
The EAT emphasised the importance of tribunals referring to established case law when making costs orders. It cited previous judgments that highlight the need for detailed and reasoned consideration of costs, particularly when dealing with litigants in person who may not have the same legal expertise as professional representatives.
The London Borough of Islington pointed out that costs borne by the respondent came from a specific budget within the local authority and that every pound spent on legal proceedings is a pound not available for the underlying purpose of that budget.
If pursued by the Respondent, the application for costs will be remitted to a new Tribunal.
Read the entire judgement here: Mr J Samra v The London Borough of Islington [2025] EAT 162
