04/06/2025Employment Tribunal Properly Considered Ability To Pay When Awarding Costs Despite Family Impact
02/06/2025Mental Health Issues Don’t Equal Legal Incapacity | Court Criticises Ombudsman’s Conflation But Upholds Decision On Poor Costs Communication
22/02/2026High Hourly Rates Do Not Of Themselves Render Budgeted Costs Disproportionate | Costs Budgeting In Parsons v Convatec
22/02/2026s71(3) | Beneficiaries Who Pursued Unreasonable Solicitors Act Assessments Bear the Costs Personally
21/02/2026Summary Assessment Without Opposition | Court Applies Independent Scrutiny to Unopposed Costs Claims
![Willis v GWB Harthills LLP & Others [2025] EAT 79, His Honour Judge James Tayler, Rule 76 Employment Tribunal Rules 2013, Rule 84 Employment Tribunal Rules 2013, Rule 74 Employment Tribunal Rules 2024, Rule 82 Employment Tribunal Rules 2024, Stage 1 Threshold Conduct, Stage 2 Discretionary Decision, Stage 3 Quantum Decision, Ability to Pay, Costs Discretion, Unreasonable Conduct, Capital Assets in Costs Assessment, Family Home Valuation, Equity Release, Joint Ownership of Property, Detailed Assessment, Standard Basis, Profit Share Entitlement, PHI Payments, Costs Capping, Broad-Brush Assessment, Means Assessment, Proportionality of Costs, Discretionary Factors in Costs Awards, Effect on Third Parties, Honesty of Party, Costs Application Principles, Conduct of Proceedings, Stage 4 Bowel Cancer Context, Zoopla Valuation Evidence, Stage 3 Costs Quantum, Shields Automotive Ltd v Greig, Howman v The Queen Elizabeth Hospital Kings Lynn, Jilley v Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health NHS Trust, Arrowsmith v Nottingham Trent University [2012] ICR 159, Vaughan v London Borough of Lewisham (No 2) [2013] IRLR 713, Doyle v North West London Hospitals NHS Trust, County Court Detailed Assessment, Costs Decision in Employment Tribunals](https://tmclegal.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Shutterstock_351049592-80x80.webp)
