header-logo header-logo

Eweida ruled too private

09 November 2009
Issue: 7392 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

A protective costs order is not available in private litigation, the Court of Appeal has ruled

A protective costs order is not available in private litigation, the Court of Appeal has ruled in a high-profile religious discrimination claim.

In Eweida v British Airways a BA employee banned from wearing a visible cross with her uniform unsuccessfully brought a claim for religious discrimination and harassment against her employer.

She hoped to appeal to the Court of Appeal, and sought a protective costs order to protect her from having to pay the respondent’s costs.

However, the court unanimously ruled that such orders were only available in public law litigation.

 

 

Issue: 7392 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hugh James—Phil Edwards

Hugh James—Phil Edwards

Serious injury teambolstered by high-profile partner hire

Freeths—Melanie Stancliffe

Freeths—Melanie Stancliffe

Firm strengthens employment team with partner hire

DAC Beachcroft—Tim Barr

DAC Beachcroft—Tim Barr

Lawyers’ liability practice strengthened with partner appointment in London

NEWS
Ceri Morgan, knowledge counsel at Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP, analyses the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd, which reshapes the law of fiduciary relationships and common law bribery
The boundaries of media access in family law are scrutinised by Nicholas Dobson in NLJ this week
Reflecting on personal experience, Professor Graham Zellick KC, Senior Master of the Bench and former Reader of the Middle Temple, questions the unchecked power of parliamentary privilege
Geoff Dover, managing director at Heirloom Fair Legal, sets out a blueprint for ethical litigation funding in the wake of high-profile law firm collapses
James Grice, head of innovation and AI at Lawfront, explores how artificial intelligence is transforming the legal sector
back-to-top-scroll