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

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