header-logo header-logo

Employment tribunal fees appeal fails

28 August 2015
Issue: 7666 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

The Court of Appeal has rejected Unison’s challenge on employment tribunal fees.

The union argued that the introduction of fees breaches the EU principle of effectiveness on the grounds that they make it unaffordable for many people to pursue a legal remedy, indirectly discriminate against women and breach the public sector equality duty.

Since fees were introduced in July 2013, the number of tribunal claims has fallen significantly. Claimants pay £160-£250 to issue a single claim and £230-£950 for a hearing. Multiple claimant claims cost more. In the Employment Appeal Tribunal it costs £400 to issue an appeal and £1,200 for a hearing. In the past year, the number of single claims has decreased by 52%.

However, the court dismissed Unison’s appeal on all three counts, in R (oao Unison) v Lord Chancellor [2015] EWCA Civ 935.

Giving the lead judgment, Lord Justice Underhill said there was provision for “exceptional circumstances”, which meant the system could not be said to be so unaffordable that no effective remedy existed under EU law. He held that “the case based on the overall decline in claims cannot succeed by itself” and needed to be “accompanied by evidence of the actual affordability of the fees in the financial circumstances of (typical) individuals”.

Underhill LJ referred to an internal government review of the fees regime, however, and noted that the decline in claims was “sufficiently startling to merit a very full and careful analysis of its causes; and if there are good grounds for concluding that part of it is accounted for by claimants being realistically unable to afford to bring proceedings the level of fees and/or the remission criteria will need to be revisited”.

Charles Urquart, partner at Clyde & Co, says: “Whilst this decision is good news for employers, as the fee related barrier to entry to bring employment tribunal claims remains in place, it will not be welcomed by low paid employees who feel obligated to bring a claim but who may be priced out of doing so.”

On the government review, Urquart says: “Employers can probably be more relaxed in the knowledge that the government will be reviewing its own law and that, as a result, the fee regime (in one form or another) is probably here to stay—at least for the duration of the present government.”

Issue: 7666 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Birketts—trainee cohort

Birketts—trainee cohort

Firm welcomes new cohort of 29 trainee solicitors for 2025

Keoghs—four appointments

Keoghs—four appointments

Four partner hires expand legal expertise in Scotland and Northern Ireland

Brabners—Ben Lamb

Brabners—Ben Lamb

Real estate team in Yorkshire welcomes new partner

NEWS
Robert Taylor of 360 Law Services warns in this week's NLJ that adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) risks entrenching disadvantage for SME law firms, unless tools are tailored to their needs
The Court of Protection has ruled in Macpherson v Sunderland City Council that capacity must be presumed unless clearly rebutted. In this week's NLJ, Sam Karim KC and Sophie Hurst of Kings Chambers dissect the judgment and set out practical guidance for advisers faced with issues relating to retrospective capacity and/or assessments without an examination
Delays and dysfunction continue to mount in the county court, as revealed in a scathing Justice Committee report and under discussion this week by NLJ columnist Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School. Bulk claims—especially from private parking firms—are overwhelming the system, with 8,000 cases filed weekly
Charles Pigott of Mills & Reeve charts the turbulent progress of the Employment Rights Bill through the House of Lords, in this week's NLJ
From oligarchs to cosmetic clinics, strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) target journalists, activists and ordinary citizens with intimidating legal tactics. Writing in NLJ this week, Sadie Whittam of Lancaster University explores the weaponisation of litigation to silence critics
back-to-top-scroll