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

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
A construction defect claim in the Court of Appeal offers a sharp lesson in pleading discipline. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains how a catastrophically drafted schedule of loss derailed otherwise viable claims. Across the areas explored in this week's column, the message is consistent: clarity, economy and proper pleading matter more than ever
back-to-top-scroll