header-logo header-logo

Tribunal fees get the push

27 July 2017
Issue: 7756 / Categories: Legal News , Tribunals , Employment
printer mail-detail

Employment tribunal fees are unlawful under both EU law and domestic law, the Supreme Court has unanimously held.

The fees, which range from £160 to £1,200, were introduced in 2013 and led to a reduction of up to 70% in the number of claims brought forward in 2014-15 and 2015-16.

Unison lost its case at the High Court and the Court of Appeal. However, seven Justices ruled in its favour this week, in R (oao Unison) v Lord Chancellor [2017] UKSC 51. Delivering the lead judgment, Lord Reed said: ‘In order for the fees to be lawful, they have to be set at a level that everyone can afford, taking into account the availability of full or partial remission.

‘The fall in the number of claims has been so sharp, so substantial, and so sustained as to warrant the conclusion that a significant number of people who would otherwise have brought claims have found the fees to be unaffordable.’

He said the unaffordability of the fees meant they imposed ‘limitations on the exercise of EU rights which are disproportionate, and… therefore unlawful under EU law.’ Further, the fees contravened the Equality Act 2010 as they disproportionately affected women.

Elaine Motion, executive chairman of Balfour+Manson, which acted for the Independent Workers Union of Great Britain (IWUGB) in the case, said: ‘This is the one of the most significant judgments in employment law in the modern era.

‘All the evidence pointed to fees denying the principle of access to justice—and the Supreme Court's decision is therefore a resounding victory for justice itself.’ 

Sarah Rushton, employment partner at Moon Beever, said that the employment tribunal system had been thrown into chaos: ‘The Supreme Court has ruled that employment tribunal fees are unlawful and has acknowledged that they are a barrier to justice ordering that all fees paid since 2013 must now be refunded. Not any easy task where the respondent may have been ordered to pay them. The current online application form will need an urgent review and it will be interesting to see if there will now be a deluge of claims from applicants who might have otherwise been put off.’ 

David Isaac, Equality and Human Rights Commission Chair, which intervened in the case, said thousands of people may have been ‘priced out of getting justice’, and called for the current policy to be scrapped. He called the judgment ‘a damning verdict on the current regime’.

Issue: 7756 / Categories: Legal News , Tribunals , Employment
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

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