header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
04 August 2017 / Michael Salter , Chris Bryden
Issue: 7757 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail

Supreme Court gives tribunal fees the push

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Chris Bryden & Michael Salter salute a masterpiece of judicial analysis of the constitutional right of access to justice

  • The statistics do not bear out the argument that weak unmeritorious claims were weeded out by the fees.
  • In the longer term, questions of the funding of the tribunal system will have to be addressed.

The Supreme Court handed down its decision in R (on the application of UNISON) v Lord Chancellor [2017] UKSC 51 last week. The Court held that the requirement for claimants in employment tribunal and Employment Appeal Tribunal proceedings to pay fees in order to access the tribunal system was void ab initio on grounds of illegality both as a matter of domestic law and EU law. The judgment of Lord Reed (with whom Lords Neuberger, Mance, Kerr, Wilson and Hughes agreed) amounts to a masterpiece of judicial analysis of the constitutional right of access to justice. The judgment bears reading in full. Law students, particularly those playing constitutional law bingo will be delighted with a decision

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

Read All
Sponsored by
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll