In Heinl & Läikkö v Moving Brands Limited & ors, Jamie Susskind secured a costs award of 100% of the Claimants’ costs, subject to detailed assessment. This followed success at the liability and remedy stages, and before the EAT.
In summary, the Claimants asked for their costs on the grounds that the Respondents had advanced a defence which they knew to be false in almost every material respect, and which could only have succeeded by concealing documents from, and tendering false evidence to, the Employment Tribunal – which they did. In addition, the Respondents had vexatiously sought to use the proceedings to falsely impugn the Claimants.
The Employment Tribunal agreed, noting:
- “the respondents had been dishonest about the reasons for dismissal”
- “the dishonesty was baked in to the way in which the proceedings were conducted”
- “This dishonesty permeated the proceedings; it was central to the defence”
- “It was serious and sustained dishonesty.”
- “The case could only be defended on the basis of dishonest evidence. That dishonest evidence required some suppression of documents.”
The Tribunal also noted that the Respondents had used the trial to impugn the Claimants. This “went beyond merely defending the proceedings, particularly in the evidence of Ms Kyösti” This conduct was found to be “vexatious. It had no proper function in the proceedings.”
Jamie Susskind was assisted by Jack Steele and instructed by Mishcon de Reya LLP.
