HC Deb 28 January 2002 vol 379 c88W
Andrew Mackinlay

To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the total cost was for all Departments arising from the case of Jane Coker v. The Lord Chancellor considered by(a) the Industrial Tribunal, (b) the Employment Appeal Tribunal and (c) the Court of Appeal; and if, in each instance, she will identify the costs of Counsel and other lawyers, outside of the Government's service. [29527]

Ms Rosie Winterton

The total legal costs for all Departments arising from the case of Jane Coker and Martha Osamorv. The Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chancellor's Department were as follows:

  1. (a) Costs up to and including the hearing before the Employment Tribunal—£84,349.96 (including VAT) of which £50,360.50 were Counsel's fees and £33,989.46 were Treasury Solicitor's costs;
  2. (b) Costs in relation to the hearing before the Employment Appeal Tribunal—£54,540.44 (including VAT) of which £40,243.75 were Counsel's fees and £14,296.69 were Treasury Solicitors' costs;
  3. (c) Costs in relation to the hearing before the Court of Appeal—£50,054.29 (including VAT) of which £38,639.87 were Counsel's fees and £11,414.42 were Treasury Solicitor's costs.

Andrew Mackinlay

To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department for what reason there was no application for costs on her behalf in the case of Jane Coker. [29939]

Ms Rosie Winterton

No application was made for costs on behalf of the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chancellor's Department in relation to the hearings before the Employment Tribunal and the Employment Appeal Tribunal as the general rule in relation to costs before those Tribunals is that each side bears its own costs.

No application was made for costs on behalf of the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chancellor's Department in relation to the hearing before the Court of Appeal as the Lord Chancellor was by that stage aware that the case brought by Jane Coker and Martha Osamor was supported by the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Commission for Racial Equality. The Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chancellor's Department did not consider it would be appropriate to seek a costs order in circumstances where publicly funded bodies with particular responsibility for promoting equal opportunities in relation to employment matters had taken the view that there was a public interest in having the legal issues raised in the proceedings resolved by the Court of Appeal.