<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: What the costs statistics tell us about cost threats</title>
	<atom:link href="http://etclaims.co.uk/2009/04/what-the-costs-statistics-tell-us-about-cost-threats/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://etclaims.co.uk/2009/04/what-the-costs-statistics-tell-us-about-cost-threats/</link>
	<description>tactics &#38; precedents</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 01 Mar 2010 13:50:25 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Naomi</title>
		<link>http://etclaims.co.uk/2009/04/what-the-costs-statistics-tell-us-about-cost-threats/comment-page-1/#comment-1568</link>
		<dc:creator>Naomi</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 May 2009 16:53:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://etclaims.co.uk/?p=1702#comment-1568</guid>
		<description>We&#039;re grateful for this comment, because it says something important more convincingly than we could. 

We both stand by Michael&#039;s original post. It contains generalisations, and it is in the nature of generalisations that they don&#039;t apply  to all cases. But in general, we think the chances of a costs order in a reasonable case properly run are very small indeed. 

What we haven&#039;t said - and don&#039;t mean - is that  costs are never awarded against a claimant in such circumstances. Long odds do come up from time to time, and occasionally a claimant who had a perfectly respectable case and ran it in a reasonable way will nevertheless face a costs order. We don&#039;t say this can&#039;t happen - just that it doesn&#039;t happen very often. We know nothing about Jenny Shulter&#039;s circumstances of course, but it is perfectly possible that she was unlucky in this way. 

But it is important to recognise that a lot of claimants do come away from employment tribunal proceedings with a strong sense of injustice. It&#039;s a process that can right wrongs, and sometimes does - but it is also imperfect, and when it fails it generally doesn&#039;t just fail to make things better - it makes them much worse.  No claimant should start a claim without first making a clear-eyed assessment of all the risks.  We say more about this in Chapter 1 of the book (which you can download from this blog) under the heading &#039;Whether to bring a claim.&#039;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>We&#8217;re grateful for this comment, because it says something important more convincingly than we could. </p>
<p>We both stand by Michael&#8217;s original post. It contains generalisations, and it is in the nature of generalisations that they don&#8217;t apply  to all cases. But in general, we think the chances of a costs order in a reasonable case properly run are very small indeed. </p>
<p>What we haven&#8217;t said &#8211; and don&#8217;t mean &#8211; is that  costs are never awarded against a claimant in such circumstances. Long odds do come up from time to time, and occasionally a claimant who had a perfectly respectable case and ran it in a reasonable way will nevertheless face a costs order. We don&#8217;t say this can&#8217;t happen &#8211; just that it doesn&#8217;t happen very often. We know nothing about Jenny Shulter&#8217;s circumstances of course, but it is perfectly possible that she was unlucky in this way. </p>
<p>But it is important to recognise that a lot of claimants do come away from employment tribunal proceedings with a strong sense of injustice. It&#8217;s a process that can right wrongs, and sometimes does &#8211; but it is also imperfect, and when it fails it generally doesn&#8217;t just fail to make things better &#8211; it makes them much worse.  No claimant should start a claim without first making a clear-eyed assessment of all the risks.  We say more about this in Chapter 1 of the book (which you can download from this blog) under the heading &#8216;Whether to bring a claim.&#8217;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jenny Shulter</title>
		<link>http://etclaims.co.uk/2009/04/what-the-costs-statistics-tell-us-about-cost-threats/comment-page-1/#comment-1566</link>
		<dc:creator>Jenny Shulter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 May 2009 14:57:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://etclaims.co.uk/?p=1702#comment-1566</guid>
		<description>This is just not true.  You should be advising people that Employment Tribunals are more than happy to award costs to respondents without giving a second thought as to whether the claimant can actually pay or not, or if it is indeed justified.  I actually think the Employment Tribunal system is one of the most corrupt I have ever come across, and completely amateurish in its approach.  Please do not give people false hope - because from my experience it is not something I would ever advise anyone to undertake - however good their case is.  There is no law.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is just not true.  You should be advising people that Employment Tribunals are more than happy to award costs to respondents without giving a second thought as to whether the claimant can actually pay or not, or if it is indeed justified.  I actually think the Employment Tribunal system is one of the most corrupt I have ever come across, and completely amateurish in its approach.  Please do not give people false hope &#8211; because from my experience it is not something I would ever advise anyone to undertake &#8211; however good their case is.  There is no law.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
