New Jersey Tribunal costs regime tested: Lessons from December decisions

At the end of December, the first two cases dealing with the newly introduced Jersey Tribunal costs regime were published. The regime, which came into force on 25 July 2025, allows Tribunals to award costs of up to £10,000 where it considers a party's conduct has been vexatious, abusive, disruptive or unreasonable. See our previous article for the background. 

Costs were not awarded in either of the December decisions re-affirming the view that the threshold for award is high and awards will be the exception rather than the rule. The key findings were: 

George Gallichan v Ashbe Construction Limited

• The Jersey Tribunal's approach to costs is likely to follow the approach taken by the UK Tribunal. 
  
  
• The types of behaviour which may trigger a costs award include refusal to engage with the proceedings properly (e.g. failing to comply with Tribunal directions or repeated breach of procedural rules), refusal to consider settlement or mediation, pursuit of hopeless or misconceived claims or acting abusively/disruptively. 
  
  
• Costs will not be awarded simply because a party loses. In this case, the Claimant had a genuine belief as to their version of events and there were points of substance to be considered. Comments that they planned to "take the company to the cleaners" did not prove unreasonable or vexatious conduct as they could equally be the result of a genuine belief of having been wronged. 

Wayne Page v (1) Jev Company Limited, (2) Jen Frederick

• Minor procedural infractions such as missing deadlines by a short period of time are not a basis for ordering costs. 
  
  
• Contrary to the position in the UK, a self-represented party may claim a costs award for their own time spent preparing their case at their hourly rate. Parties that chose not to instruct external representatives should not be penalised by being unable to claim for their time spent. 

The decisions differed on one important point. In its first decision (George Gallichan), the Tribunal said that costs can be awarded against representatives as well as parties to proceedings. In a judgment issued only one week later (Wayne Page), the Tribunal came to the opposite conclusion and rejected that a costs order can be made against a representative. It found that bad behaviour by a representative can only be sanctioned by a costs order against a party, not the representative themselves. Whilst the later decision in Wayne Page is contrary to the position in the UK, it is likely more persuasive as to the approach that will be taken by the Jersey Tribunals because the point was a live issue in this case and the judgment was given by a panel including the Tribunal Chair. In Wayne Page the Tribunal explained the reference to costs being awarded against representatives in George Gallichan was a summary of the position in the UK. The divergence creates scope for further argument nonetheless. 

The decisions show that despite its relatively limited remit, employees and employers are making use of the new regime and are willing to incur time and further costs in progressing cost applications to hearing.