header-logo header-logo

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

Supreme Court gives tribunal fees the push

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

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Construction team bolstered by hire of senior consultant duo

Switalskis—four appointments

Switalskis—four appointments

Firm expands residential conveyancing team with quadruple appointment

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

Private client team welcomes senior associatein Worcester

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll