Garden Court Chambers has been ordered to pay £20,000 in costs by an employment tribunal for ‘unreasonable conduct’ in bundle preparation for a high-profile discrimination case involving one of its own barristers.
A costs hearing followed what the judge described as criminal defence barrister Allison Bailey’s ‘mixed success’ at the tribunal, where she was found to have been discriminated against because of her gender-critical beliefs. The tribunal did not uphold Bailey’s complaint against campaign group Stonewall, a decision she is appealing.
The tribunal found she had been discriminated against or victimised in two out of five alleged detriments. Bailey was awarded £22,000 compensation for injury to feelings.
In the costs judgment, Employment Judge Sarah Goodman said the tribunal had to ‘bear in mind that an order for costs is not intended to punish a party for making the task of the tribunal difficult’. She added: ‘Its purpose is to compensate another party for the additional work caused by unreasonable conduct. We must decide the costs application without ill will on our part because we found the bundle so difficult to use.’
For the costs hearing, the panel had the original trial bundle consisting of 6,431 pages; a bundle for the costs hearing of 259 pages; two volumes of costs hearing bundles of 1,369 pages and 444 pages; skeletons from each party and a 285-page bundle of authorities.
The 14-page judgment said: ‘We also considered that at several stages the respondent’s accusations and attitude to the claimant’s solicitor was unmerited and unhelpful, though for a time the claimant’s team kept going with stoic goodwill.’
It added: ‘Difficulties in putting a bundle together are not unusual. What was important in this case is that it was extremely complex, there was a very long trial coming up, the constant delay made it very difficult for the claimant (and possibly respondent too) to make adequate preparation for trial, and the respondent solicitor’s response to constructive suggestions and courteous requests was to plough on until (as it proved) it was too late to achieve a usable bundle or for much of the witness statements to be cross-referenced to it.’
The tribunal concluded there was ‘unreasonable conduct in the preparation of the bundle’ adding: ‘In several respects it went well beyond normal disagreement.’
Making an award for costs, the judge said the ‘serious impact’ on Bailey’s team meant it would be ‘just’ to make an order.
Bailey’s total costs for the liability hearing were £765,665. The total costs for the Garden Court respondents were £675,673, including the costs draftsman’s £5,000 fee.
Bailey crowdfunded to help cover the costs of her legal fees. In a statement on her website, she expressed her ‘immense gratitude’ to donors, adding that she would not need to reopen the appeal ‘thanks to the immense generosity of a dear friend’.
In deciding to order the chambers pay £20,000 towards Bailey’s costs, the judge said litigation had ‘gone a long time’ and been ‘very expensive and stressful for those concerned’. The panel found ‘had the bundle been smaller, it would have been less difficult to find a solution in time’.
It said: ‘Summary assessment will provide a clean break and an end to litigation, at any rate for Garden Court. Another factor in our decision was that the claimant had not succeeded in a large part of her claim against Garden Court; and that, judging by the publicity surrounding the claim, her particular target in this litigation was Stonewall, a claim which had not succeeded, either in the instructing claim (though that is subject to appeal), or the PCP in the indirect discrimination claim.’
