header-logo header-logo

30 May 2013 / Philip Henson
Issue: 7562 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail

Testing times

Philip Henson reviews the government consultation on fee remissions for the courts & tribunals

All fee charging courts and tribunals operate a system of remissions to ensure that individual applicants who are unable to afford fees are not denied access to their services. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) published a consultation, which closed this month, on a wide-ranging reform of the fee remission (waivers) system for the courts and tribunals.

It is proposed that the new system will apply across all fee charging business areas with the exception of the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber).

As fees are being introduced to the employment tribunals and the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) for the first time in autumn of this year, the subject of fee remissions may be a new concept to many employment law practitioners and HR professionals.

The proposals

The consultation proposes a new two-stage test based on the disposable capital and monthly income of the claimant. The applicant will have to pass both tests in order to be eligible for a fee remission.

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

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

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