header-logo header-logo

Fall-out from Unison

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

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

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