header-logo header-logo

01 September 2017 / Ruth Kennedy , Gus Baker
Issue: 7759 / Categories: Features , Tribunals , Employment
printer mail-detail

Unlawful fees & out of time claims

Gus Baker & Ruth Kennedy ask whether claimants who could not afford to pay employment tribunal fees could now bring claims out of time

  • Quashing of Fees Order 2013 as ultra vires ab initio means claims could be brought out of time under the ‘reasonably practicable’ test.
  • For discrimination claims, the statutory discretion test is more flexible.
  • Proceedings must be issued immediately, with supporting evidence.

Between 2013 and July this year, individuals presenting claims in employment tribunals were required to pay a fee of up to £1,200 in order to avoid their claims being struck out. In R (on the application of Unison) v Lord Chancellor [2017] UKSC 51, [2017] All ER (D) 174 (Jul) the Supreme Court held that the employment tribunal fees introduced in the Employment Tribunals and the Employment Appeal Tribunal Fees Order 2013 (SI 2013/1893) were unlawful as being ultra vires ab initio and in breach of EU law (see page 22). At the time of writing it is not known

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

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts

An engagement ring may symbolise romance, but the courts remain decidedly practical about who keeps it after a split, writes Mark Pawlowski, barrister and professor emeritus of property law at the University of Greenwich, in this week's NLJ

Medical reporting organisation fees have become ‘the final battleground’ in modern costs litigation, says Kris Kilsby, costs lawyer at Peak Costs and council member of the Association of Costs Lawyers, in this week's NLJ
back-to-top-scroll