header-logo header-logo

Supreme Court gives tribunal fees the push

04 August 2017 / Michael Salter , Chris Bryden
Issue: 7757 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail

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

Pillsbury—Lord Garnier KC

Pillsbury—Lord Garnier KC

Appointment of former Solicitor General bolsters corporate investigations and white collar practice

Hall & Wilcox—Nigel Clark

Hall & Wilcox—Nigel Clark

Firm strengthens international strategy with hire of global relations consultant

Slater Heelis—Sylviane Kokouendo & Shazia Ashraf

Slater Heelis—Sylviane Kokouendo & Shazia Ashraf

Partner and associate join employment practice

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