EXTRA DIVISION, INNER HOUSE, COURT OF SESSION
Lord Osborne Lady Dorrian Lord Carloway	[2010] CSIH 66 XA165/08 OPINION OF THE COURT delivered by LORD OSBORNE in Application by KENNETH McALPINE Applicant; for LEAVE TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL Respondents: _______

Act: absent

Alt: Hay; McGrigors LLP

01 July 2010

[1] There is before the court a motion at the instance of the respondents for expenses in the application made by the applicant, Kenneth McAlpine, for leave to appeal to this court against a decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal. That motion is opposed. Counsel for the respondent appeared to support it. The applicant had indicated previously that he did not intend to appear, but he has lodged with the court opposition in writing to the motion for expenses in which he sets forth several reasons why, according to him, the motion should not be granted.

[2] The background is that on 12 February 2010, this court issued its opinion in explanation of its decision to refuse leave to appeal; its reasons were given in full in that opinion. Essentially they amount to the assessment that none of the matters sought to be raised by the applicant before this court was arguable.

[3] Expenses are of course a matter which require to be dealt with according to the exercise of the court's discretion. The normal principle applicable in cases where expenses are an issue is that expenses follow success. The respondents were successful in resisting the application for leave to appeal and nothing in the statement of reasons set out in the opposition to the motion in writing persuades us that there is any reason to depart from the ordinary principle in this case.

[4] Among the points made by the applicant was that the respondents had chosen to be represented at the hearing on the application for leave to appeal, but that there had been no obligation upon them to attend. However, as has been pointed out before us, plainly the respondents had a direct interest in the fate of the application for leave to appeal and we see nothing unreasonable in their decision to attend before this court with a view to persuading the court that the application should be refused. With regard to the other reasons given in the written opposition to this motion, we do not consider that they raise any matter of relevance and substance. In all these circumstances we shall grant the motion for expenses.