header-logo header-logo

20 October 2017
Categories: Legal News , Tribunals , Employment
printer mail-detail

Unlawful employment tribunal fees to be paid back

The government is to pay back all employment tribunal fees—ruled unlawful by the Supreme Court in July—along with 0.5% interest.

It will be paid in stages. In the first stage, the government will contact about 1,000 people who have applied for refunds concerning single claims. The scheme will be opened up four weeks later to everyone else who paid fees.

Those who paid fees can register online at ethelpwithfees@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk or by post at Employment Tribunal Central Office (England and Wales)/Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) Fees, PO Box 10218, Leicester LE1 8EG.

The government said it is also working with trade unions who have supported large multiple claims potentially involving hundreds of claimants.

Trade union Unison won a historic victory in R (Unison) v Lord Chancellor [2017] UKSC 51, with seven Justices unanimously holding that the government acted unlawfully in introducing fees ranging from £160 to £230 or £950 for further hearings, and as much as £1,200 for certain claims, in July 2013.

Employment lawyers have been expectantly waiting to see how the government would go about paying back the fees. They have highlighted how, while some people paid the unlawful fees, others will have been deterred from bringing their claims.

Unison head of legal services Adam Creme said: ‘The government is now making good on its promise to refund anyone who was unfairly charged to take their employers to court.

‘The government got it very wrong on fees, as ministers found to their cost when they lost at the Supreme Court in the summer. But the real tragedy of the fees fiasco is the thousands of wronged employees who couldn’t afford to shell out to get justice and so lost out. Nothing can be done to help them, or to bring the many unscrupulous employers, who broke the law and got away with it, to court.’

The government has said, in response to a Parliamentary question, that the estimated cost of refunding the fees is £33m.

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