The Unite response to the judgement, posted by bitsnpieces in post #801 above contains this bald, but economical, statement:
Neither, interestingly, did he award British Airways costs.
Not
yet, he hasn't!!!!!
This is merely another twisting of the truth, which is a common factor in Unite/BASSA 'communications'. What actually happened (and this is from a source in the court when the judgment was announced) is that BA's legal team asked for an interim and immediate payment of some of its substantial costs, based on the judgement being in favour of BA. Because Unite submitted appeals, the judge decided to 'stay' (delay awarding) the costs, thereby keeping them 'in the case' ('stayed' until any appeal, or denial of the appeal). The judge did remark that if the appeal was
not awarded, or if the appeal was
not expedited, then BA might be some time waiting for it's costs to be recovered. So, the judge has
not dismissd costs, but is merely waiting to see if the appeal has any merit and/or will be expedited.
If the appeal is denied, or fails, BA will almost certainly get its costs from then case so far, plus any costs incurred for the appeal. Unite's £1.2 million bill for this case is going to go stratospheric when BA's costs are added, but Unite doesn't want that known by all and sundry, does it?