Employment Appeals Tribunal costs.

AnnaStezia

Not a request for legal advice.

If an employee wins a case at the tribunal and is awarded damages does the tribunal have authority to award party and party costs too ?

GM228

AnnaStezia wrote: »

Not a request for legal advice.

If an employee wins a case at the tribunal and is awarded damages does the tribunal have authority to award party and party costs too ?

No they are not a court of law and so can't award any costs (for representation), each side must pay their own costs irrespective of the outcome.

NUTLEY BOY

Out of curiosity, how does an applicant enforce an award if the order of the EAT is not a court order ?

Samuel T. Cogley

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

Out of curiosity, how does an applicant enforce an award if the order of the EAT is not a court order ?

I thought they had to go to court, for enforcement, if the employer won't co-operate but may be talking out of my backside as usuaul.

GM228

At this point I must note that the EAT is effectively non existant, and has only dealth with legacy issues since late 2015. It's functions are now under the remit of the the Labour Court and is awaiting a ministerial order for it to be disolved.

EAT decisions were enforced via the Circuit Court, enforcement of LC decisions is via the District Court.

ED E

Both the RTB and the LC appear to be a colossal waste of everyones time. Maybe it filters some spoofers from reaching the courts but they set the threshold of where its economic to pursue a wrongdoing out of reach of most.

johnnyskeleton

ED E wrote: »

Both the RTB and the LC appear to be a colossal waste of everyones time. Maybe it filters some spoofers from reaching the courts but they set the threshold of where its economic to pursue a wrongdoing out of reach of most.

I would say the exact opposite. Without the risk of costs if unsuccessful or the facility to strike out a frivolous or vexatious claim, all sorts of unmeritorious claims can be brought to the RTB or the WRC and will get a full hearing.

Not saying that this does actually happen, just that it doesnt have any filtration mechanism.

And far from setting the treshold too high, its very cheap to apppy to either. You dont need a lawyer, dont risk costs and you dont have the levels of stamp duty that courts require. Very few people couldnt afford to go to the RTB or WRC.

ED E

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I would say the exact opposite. Without the risk of costs if unsuccessful or the facility to strike out a frivolous or vexatious claim, all sorts of unmeritorious claims can be brought to the RTB or the WRC and will get a full hearing.

Not saying that this does actually happen, just that it doesnt have any filtration mechanism.

And far from setting the treshold too high, its very cheap to apppy to either. You dont need a lawyer, dont risk costs and you dont have the levels of stamp duty that courts require. Very few people couldnt afford to go to the RTB or WRC.

Its not the costs for the RTB/LC that I have issue with. Its the fact that its not legally binding.

An employee is awarded say €5000 for unfair dismissal or a landlord for rent overholding to a similar figure. So what? It costs more than that to then take a court case to enforce payment. Unless the party is awarded a very large figure its a loss maker to actually receive a single cent. These bodies either need legal backing so payments are actually made or be disbanded and just have the inevitable court case and save the state a large sum.

4ensic15

ED E wrote: »

Its not the costs for the RTB/LC that I have issue with. Its the fact that its not legally binding.

An employee is awarded say €5000 for unfair dismissal or a landlord for rent overholding to a similar figure. So what? It costs more than that to then take a court case to enforce payment. Unless the party is awarded a very large figure its a loss maker to actually receive a single cent. These bodies either need legal backing so payments are actually made or be disbanded and just have the inevitable court case and save the state a large sum.

Costs can be awarded by the Court for enforcement so it is usually in the interests of the loser to pay up rather than have the expense of a court case.

3DataModem

It's a shame the EAT is gone. A very simple and useful process. No representation needed unless you wanted it, and relatively easy to enforce (and get costs for enforcement) through courts.

Samuel T. Cogley

What's the process now? Straight to court?

GM228

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

What's the process now? Straight to court?

Adjudication under the WRC usually comes first.

redhat244

3DataModem wrote: »

It's a shame the EAT is gone. A very simple and useful process. No representation needed unless you wanted it, and relatively easy to enforce (and get costs for enforcement) through courts.

How does the self EAT re-presenter present the evidence without access to the detailed notes and books which the Solicitor/Barrister would have used to walk them through the case?

IsaacWunder

3DataModem wrote: »

It's a shame the EAT is gone. A very simple and useful process. No representation needed unless you wanted it, and relatively easy to enforce (and get costs for enforcement) through courts.

The WRC adjudication procedure is straightforward, as is enforcement of any award via the courts.