Case Law
< back to case lawMcMillan Williams –v- Range [2004] EWCA Civ 294
Miss Range was an assistant solicitor who thought she was being employed on a salary with a bonus scheme, but who later discovered that her employers were holding her to terms where her monthly "pay" was to be regarded merely as payments on account, and that her annual remuneration would be based on the number of new clients she won and the number of chargeable hours she recorded - with targets she found impossible to reach.
She lost her claim at the Employment Tribunal, and sought leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal.
In granting leave to appeal, Tuckey LJ said:
"The costs of further litigating this dispute will be disproportionate to the amount at stake. ADR is strongly recommended."
The hint was not taken. The parties ploughed on, and at the end of the appeal hearing, Ward LJ noted that costs had reached £50,000. He remarked: "My heart sinks." The reason given by the claimant firm for refusing ADR was:
"...it appears clear beyond any doubt that the mediation will not be successful because neither side are willing to change their position."
...to which Ward LJ retorted:
"In my judgment this is a case where we should condemn the posturing and jockeying for position ...and thus direct that each side pays its own costs for their frolic in the Court of Appeal."
Posturing... jockeying... frolic... The traditional way of conducting litigation is surely dead!