header-logo header-logo

11 September 2014
Issue: 7622 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Tribunal fees have deterrent effect

Official figures reveal a steep decline in the number of employment claims raised in the UK since tribunal fees were introduced last year.

Ministry of Justice (MoJ) statistics published this week show a 59% drop in cases lodged between August 2013 and the end of March 2014 compared to the same eight-month period in the previous year (16,206 compared to 39,567).

The period between April and June 2014 also showed a decrease (4,245 claims lodged compared to 13,899 in the same quarter the previous year) but the figures are not comparable due to the introduction of early conciliation in April. All potential claims must now be referred to Acas before they can be lodged, which delays cases by up to one month.

Potential litigants have, since 29 July 2013, been required to pay an issue fee to lodge a claim and a hearing fee to proceed to a full hearing. While fees can be reduced or waived in certain circumstances, this is rarely granted. Fees range from £160 to £250 to issue a claim, and £230 to £950 for a hearing.

According to Innes Clark, head of employment law at Morton Fraser, the statistics will increase pressure on the government to reform the system.

“Whilst employers should not be faced with spurious claims, the impact of the fee requirements has been to create a major barrier to access to justice,” he says. 

“The fee regime has unfairly hit low paid workers in particular, who should not be deterred, on grounds of cost, from pursuing legitimate claims. The publication of these statistics is further strong evidence that reform is needed.”

Trade union Unison unsuccessfully challenged the fee regime in the High Court earlier this year. An appeal is scheduled to be heard next week (18 September). The Labour Party has said it will reform the fees regime if it forms the next government.

 

Issue: 7622 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll