header-logo header-logo

21 December 2011
Issue: 7495 / Categories: Legal News , Tribunals , Employment
printer mail-detail

Employment tribunal fees on the horizon

Workers could be charged up to £2,350 to bring an employment tribunal claim, the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has announced.

An MoJ consultation, published last week, puts forward two options:

■ a fee of between £150-£250 to begin a claim, plus between £250-£1250 for a hearing, with no limit on the maximum award; or
■ a single fee of between £200-£600 where the maximum award is limited to £30,000, with the option of an additional fee of £1,750 where the claimant seeks an award above this amount.

Although claimants will pay the fees initially, the unsuccessful party will bear the cost of the fees. Fee waivers will be available in certain circumstances, for example, people on benefits couples whose income is less than £18,000, or couples with two children whose income is less than £23,860. The government will continue to fund Acas.

Justice Minister Jonathan Djanogly said the proposals would save the taxpayer £84m.
Employment lawyer Esther Smith, partner at Thomas Eggar, says: “If a cost system is implemented, which I think it should, it must not deter people with genuine claims but no means to pay the fees. 

“In addition, care needs to be taken to ensure that the cost system implemented does not give rise to a new legal insurance industry, setting up whizzy schemes to fund people's claims for them out of future compensation. A fee structure related to the value of the claim being pursued would be a sensible starting point. It would also ensure that claimants confirmed the value of the claim they were pursuing early, and they would then be bound to stick to this, or a lower figure as the claim progressed.  

“This in itself should aid early settlement of claims, as all too often claims proceed to hearing on legal points, without the claimants or their representatives giving any real thought to the value of what they are arguing about. The structure of fees related to the stated value of the claim would also deter people from initially over valuing or over estimating their claim at the outset.”

The consultation, Charging Fees in Employment Tribunals and the Employment Appeal Tribunal, ends on 6 March 2012 and the fees are due to be introduced after 2013-2014. There were 218,100 claims to employment tribunals in 2010-11, a 44%  increase on 2008-09.
 
 
 

Issue: 7495 / Categories: Legal News , Tribunals , Employment
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Firm invests in national growth with 44 appointments across five offices

NEWS
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
back-to-top-scroll