header-logo header-logo

08 September 2017 / Tessa Fry , Tessa Fry
Issue: 7760 / Categories: Opinion , Tribunals , Employment
printer mail-detail

Fall-out from Unison

Unfair should not mean unlawful, says Tessa Fry

The Supreme Court ruling that tribunal fees are unlawful is surprising given that most of the evidence was rejected in two cases before the High Court and subsequently the Court of Appeal. By contrast, the Supreme Court accepted almost all Unison’s arguments some of which were based on hypothetical examples and assumptions, rather than actual evidence ( R (on the application of Unison) v Lord Chancellor [2017] UKSC 51, [2017] All ER (D) 174 (Jul)).

While the Court of Appeal was sympathetic to Unison’s arguments, it did not consider the evidence provided to be a safe basis for concluding that the Fees Order was unlawful. The Supreme Court, however, ruled that the Fees Order effectively prevents access to justice and is therefore unlawful. In other words, the fees are unfair, therefore they are unlawful.

There was no dispute in either court that since the fees were introduced, the number of tribunal claims had declined substantially. However, the Court of Appeal held that figures relating to

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts

An engagement ring may symbolise romance, but the courts remain decidedly practical about who keeps it after a split, writes Mark Pawlowski, barrister and professor emeritus of property law at the University of Greenwich, in this week's NLJ

Medical reporting organisation fees have become ‘the final battleground’ in modern costs litigation, says Kris Kilsby, costs lawyer at Peak Costs and council member of the Association of Costs Lawyers, in this week's NLJ
back-to-top-scroll