header-logo header-logo

27 July 2017
Issue: 7756 / Categories: Legal News , Tribunals , Employment
printer mail-detail

Tribunal fees get the push

Employment tribunal fees are unlawful under both EU law and domestic law, the Supreme Court has unanimously held.

The fees, which range from £160 to £1,200, were introduced in 2013 and led to a reduction of up to 70% in the number of claims brought forward in 2014-15 and 2015-16.

Unison lost its case at the High Court and the Court of Appeal. However, seven Justices ruled in its favour this week, in R (oao Unison) v Lord Chancellor [2017] UKSC 51. Delivering the lead judgment, Lord Reed said: ‘In order for the fees to be lawful, they have to be set at a level that everyone can afford, taking into account the availability of full or partial remission.

‘The fall in the number of claims has been so sharp, so substantial, and so sustained as to warrant the conclusion that a significant number of people who would otherwise have brought claims have found the fees to be unaffordable.’

He said the unaffordability of the fees meant they imposed ‘limitations on the exercise of EU rights which are disproportionate, and… therefore unlawful under EU law.’ Further, the fees contravened the Equality Act 2010 as they disproportionately affected women.

Elaine Motion, executive chairman of Balfour+Manson, which acted for the Independent Workers Union of Great Britain (IWUGB) in the case, said: ‘This is the one of the most significant judgments in employment law in the modern era.

‘All the evidence pointed to fees denying the principle of access to justice—and the Supreme Court's decision is therefore a resounding victory for justice itself.’ 

Sarah Rushton, employment partner at Moon Beever, said that the employment tribunal system had been thrown into chaos: ‘The Supreme Court has ruled that employment tribunal fees are unlawful and has acknowledged that they are a barrier to justice ordering that all fees paid since 2013 must now be refunded. Not any easy task where the respondent may have been ordered to pay them. The current online application form will need an urgent review and it will be interesting to see if there will now be a deluge of claims from applicants who might have otherwise been put off.’ 

David Isaac, Equality and Human Rights Commission Chair, which intervened in the case, said thousands of people may have been ‘priced out of getting justice’, and called for the current policy to be scrapped. He called the judgment ‘a damning verdict on the current regime’.

Issue: 7756 / Categories: Legal News , Tribunals , Employment
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