header-logo header-logo

Employment claim fees may be unlawful

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

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll