header-logo header-logo

10 April 2024
Issue: 8066 / Categories: Legal News , Employment , Tribunals
printer mail-detail

Employment claim fees may be unlawful

Re-introducing employment tribunal fees is potentially unlawful and would block access to justice and increase costs to taxpayers, the Employment Lawyers Association (ELA) has warned

In January, the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) proposed a blanket, irrecoverable £55 fee for claims before the employment tribunal and Employment Appeal Tribunal. Its stated aim is to reduce taxpayer costs, incentivise settlement and generate resources for ACAS.

Formally responding in March to the MoJ consultation ‘Introducing fees in the employment tribunals and the Employment Appeal Tribunal’, the ELA said the fee would place additional burdens on tribunal staff and would likely deter those experiencing, or those who had experienced, in-work poverty.

The ELA argued the fee scheme would not provide incentive to settle to the well-off, but instead have a disproportionate and deterrent impact on potential claimants with little money. Moreover, the ELA highlighted that people with protected characteristics make up a disproportionate number of people who are working but in poverty.

The ELA pointed out there was no exemption for low-value or non-monetary claims, and that, on the government’s own impact assessment, it did not meet the policy goals. It argued the proposals were so ‘irrational’ they might be unlawful.

ELA working party co-chair Caspar Glyn KC said: ‘From the evidence presented, and the government’s own admission that the new regime will cost more to run than it raises… the inference could be drawn that the real aim of these proposals is to deter claims, which will in turn obstruct access to justice for the most vulnerable people in need of legal intervention.’

The government introduced employment tribunal fees in 2013 but was forced to drop them in 2017 after the Supreme Court ruled them unlawful.

Issue: 8066 / Categories: Legal News , Employment , Tribunals
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