header-logo header-logo

Unlawful fees & out of time claims

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

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

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