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

Birketts—Nathan Evans

Birketts—Nathan Evans

Commercial and technology team in Cambridge strengthened by partner hire

Andrew & Andrew Solicitors—Shikha Datta

Andrew & Andrew Solicitors—Shikha Datta

Hampshire firm appoints head of new family department

Latham & Watkins—Sarah Lightdale

Latham & Watkins—Sarah Lightdale

Firm strengthens securities practice with partner return

NEWS

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
back-to-top-scroll