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

Myers & Co—Jen Goodwin

Myers & Co—Jen Goodwin

Head of corporate promoted to director

Boies Schiller Flexner—Lindsay Reimschussel

Boies Schiller Flexner—Lindsay Reimschussel

Firm strengthens international arbitration team with key London hire

Corker Binning—Priya Dave

Corker Binning—Priya Dave

FCA contentious financial regulation lawyer joins the team as of counsel

NEWS
Social media giants should face tortious liability for the psychological harms their platforms inflict, argues Harry Lambert of Outer Temple Chambers in this week’s NLJ
The Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024—once heralded as a breakthrough—has instead plunged leaseholders into confusion, warns Shabnam Ali-Khan of Russell-Cooke in this week’s NLJ
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has now confirmed that offering a disabled employee a trial period in an alternative role can itself be a 'reasonable adjustment' under the Equality Act 2010: in this week's NLJ, Charles Pigott of Mills & Reeve analyses the evolving case law
Caroline Shea KC and Richard Miller of Falcon Chambers examine the growing judicial focus on 'cynical breach' in restrictive covenant cases, in this week's issue of NLJ
Ian Gascoigne of LexisNexis dissects the uneasy balance between open justice and confidentiality in England’s civil courts, in this week's NLJ. From public hearings to super-injunctions, he identifies five tiers of privacy—from fully open proceedings to entirely secret ones—showing how a patchwork of exceptions has evolved without clear design
back-to-top-scroll