header-logo header-logo

10 April 2024
Issue: 8066 / Categories: Legal News , Employment , Tribunals
printer mail-detail

Employment claim fees may be unlawful

Re-introducing employment tribunal fees is potentially unlawful and would block access to justice and increase costs to taxpayers, the Employment Lawyers Association (ELA) has warned

In January, the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) proposed a blanket, irrecoverable £55 fee for claims before the employment tribunal and Employment Appeal Tribunal. Its stated aim is to reduce taxpayer costs, incentivise settlement and generate resources for ACAS.

Formally responding in March to the MoJ consultation ‘Introducing fees in the employment tribunals and the Employment Appeal Tribunal’, the ELA said the fee would place additional burdens on tribunal staff and would likely deter those experiencing, or those who had experienced, in-work poverty.

The ELA argued the fee scheme would not provide incentive to settle to the well-off, but instead have a disproportionate and deterrent impact on potential claimants with little money. Moreover, the ELA highlighted that people with protected characteristics make up a disproportionate number of people who are working but in poverty.

The ELA pointed out there was no exemption for low-value or non-monetary claims, and that, on the government’s own impact assessment, it did not meet the policy goals. It argued the proposals were so ‘irrational’ they might be unlawful.

ELA working party co-chair Caspar Glyn KC said: ‘From the evidence presented, and the government’s own admission that the new regime will cost more to run than it raises… the inference could be drawn that the real aim of these proposals is to deter claims, which will in turn obstruct access to justice for the most vulnerable people in need of legal intervention.’

The government introduced employment tribunal fees in 2013 but was forced to drop them in 2017 after the Supreme Court ruled them unlawful.

Issue: 8066 / Categories: Legal News , Employment , Tribunals
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll