header-logo header-logo

Courts will review £1,200 employee fees

29 July 2013
Issue: 7571 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Unison wins permission to challenge employment tribunal fees

The High Court has given Unison, the trade union, permission to bring a judicial review challenging the introduction of employment tribunal fees.

The hearing is due to take place in October. Unison succeeded at an oral hearing in the High Court this week, although its paper application failed. However, the court rejected its application for an injunction to prevent the fees coming into force.

As of this week, employees and ex-employees will need to pay £160–£250 to issue a claim, and a hearing fee of £230–£950. Groups issuing a claim will pay higher fees of £320–£1,500 to issue claims and £460–£5,700 for a hearing.

The lower range of fees will apply to simpler cases such as wages claims, while the higher fees will apply to unfair dismissal and discrimination cases.

Previously, claimants did not pay fees.

In its legal challenge, Unison will argue that:

  • the fees are prohibitively expensive, and the national courts have a duty under EU law not to make it excessively difficult to exercise individual rights;
  • fees are not payable in most tribunal claims therefore it breaches the principle of equivalence;
  • there has been no proper assessment of the public sector equality duty; and
  • the fees will have a disproportionate impact on women.

Remissions will be granted in certain circumstances. An unmarried claimant with no children will not qualify if they are earning over £13,000. A married person with four children will be ineligible if the combined household income exceeds £29,000.

Employment law barrister Elizabeth George, of Leigh Day & Co said employers “will be less inclined to abide by their legal obligations as the risk of being challenged will be much reduced”.

However, justice minister Helen Grant said it was important to reduce the financial burden of the £74m employment tribunal system.

Issue: 7571 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll