header-logo header-logo

Ministry rejects arguments over fees

02 February 2017
Issue: 7733 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

The introduction of the controversial employment tribunal fees “broadly met its objectives”, a Ministry of Justice (MoJ) review has concluded.

However, the MoJ has acknowledged that the fees are deterring some claims, and launched a consultation on proposals to reform the Help with Fees scheme to extend the scope of support available to people on lower incomes.

Since July 2013, it has cost £160–£250 to issue a claim, and £230–£950 for a hearing. Groups pay higher fees of £320–£1,500 to issue claims and £460–£5,700 for a hearing.

Lawyers have consistently argued that the fees are preventing many claimants bringing cases, as shown by a drastic drop in number of claims following their introduction. Trades Union Congress General Secretary Frances O’Grady said the government was “turning a blind eye” to the impact of fees, and pointed out that the review referred to a 68% fall in the number of claims brought.

In the consultation paper, the MoJ concedes that the fall in claims “has been significant and much greater than originally estimated” and that there is “some evidence that some people who have been unable to resolve their disputes through conciliation have been discouraged from bringing a formal claim because of the requirement to pay a fee”.

However, Justice minister Sir Oliver Heald said more people are now using Acas’s free conciliation service than were previously using voluntary conciliation and bringing claims combined, and that nearly half of all Acas referrals do not proceed to tribunal. He said the fees were generating between £8.5m and £9m income annually, which was “in line with what we expected”.

The MoJ proposals for reform, set out in the review paper, Review of the introduction of fees in the Employment Tribunals, include exempting people earning £1,250 a month or less (up from its current threshold of £1,085), with additional allowances for people living as couples or who have children to support. Certain proceedings for recovery from the National Insurance Fund, such as redundancy payment claims from insolvent employers, are to be exempt, with immediate effect.

Law Society president Robert Bourns said: “The minister asserts there is 'no evidence to suggest' the fees are limiting access to justice—but the evidence in his own report suggests that tens of thousands of people are slipping through the cracks.

“The truth is employment tribunal fees have had a chilling effect on the number of people able or willing to bring a case against their employer. Particularly affected are claims in areas such as sexual discrimination and equal pay—and the reduction in tribunal cases is not offset by the increase in people using ACAS’s early conciliation service.”

Employment lawyer Carolyn Brown, who heads accountancy giant RSM's client legal services practice, said: “In the immediate aftermath of fees charging a massive drop of around 80% in claims was found in some research.

“Ever since, the Unions have been calling for the measure to be scrapped and unsuccessful legal challenges have followed. Female claimants losing pay or jobs during maternity absence were particularly badly affected by the measure.

“Now the government has announced a tinkering with the tribunal fees remission scheme for low income groups and yet another period of consultation. There is good news for some though.

“Fees are removed for those who have to claim through the tribunal for some statutory amounts such as pay arrears, notice pay and holiday pay which is paid by the government when their employer is insolvent.”  

Issue: 7733 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Burges Salmon—Lillian Mackenzie

Burges Salmon—Lillian Mackenzie

Projects and infrastructure team appoints partner in Edinburgh

Gateley Legal—Brian Dowling

Gateley Legal—Brian Dowling

Partner joins residential development team in Reading

DWF—Don Brown

DWF—Don Brown

Banking and finance team expands with strategic partner hire

NEWS
In this week's issue of NLJ, Emma Brunning and Dharshica Thanarajasingham of Birketts unpack the high-conflict financial remedy case TF v SF [2025] EWHC 1659 (Fam). The husband’s conduct—described by the judge as a ‘masterclass in gaslighting’—included hiding a £9.5m deferred payment from the sale of a port acquired post-separation. Despite his claims that the port was non-matrimonial, the court found its value rooted in marital assets and efforts
In his latest 'Civil way' column for this week's NLJ, Stephen Gold delivers a witty roundup of procedural updates and judicial oddities. From the rise in litigant-in-person hourly rates (£24 from October) to the Supreme Court’s venue hire options (canapés in Courtroom 1, anyone?), Gold blends legal insight with dry humour
Lord Neuberger, former president of the Supreme Court, shares his views on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill in this week's NLJ with William Raven
In July, the Supreme Court quashed the convictions of Tom Hayes and Carlo Palombo, ruling that trial judges had wrongly directed juries to treat profit-motivated Libor submissions as inherently dishonest. In this week’s NLJ, David Stern and James Fletcher of 5 St Andrew’s Hill reflect on the decision
Writing in NLJ this week, Nick Brett and Vicky Lankester of Brett Wilson dissect the chronic failures of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) in meeting disclosure obligations. From the Post Office scandal to the collapsed trial of Liam Allan, they highlight how systemic neglect has led to wrongful convictions and miscarriages of justice
back-to-top-scroll