header-logo header-logo

Employment tribunal fees appeal fails

28 August 2015
Issue: 7666 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

The Court of Appeal has rejected Unison’s challenge on employment tribunal fees.

The union argued that the introduction of fees breaches the EU principle of effectiveness on the grounds that they make it unaffordable for many people to pursue a legal remedy, indirectly discriminate against women and breach the public sector equality duty.

Since fees were introduced in July 2013, the number of tribunal claims has fallen significantly. Claimants pay £160-£250 to issue a single claim and £230-£950 for a hearing. Multiple claimant claims cost more. In the Employment Appeal Tribunal it costs £400 to issue an appeal and £1,200 for a hearing. In the past year, the number of single claims has decreased by 52%.

However, the court dismissed Unison’s appeal on all three counts, in R (oao Unison) v Lord Chancellor [2015] EWCA Civ 935.

Giving the lead judgment, Lord Justice Underhill said there was provision for “exceptional circumstances”, which meant the system could not be said to be so unaffordable that no effective remedy existed under EU law. He held that “the case based on the overall decline in claims cannot succeed by itself” and needed to be “accompanied by evidence of the actual affordability of the fees in the financial circumstances of (typical) individuals”.

Underhill LJ referred to an internal government review of the fees regime, however, and noted that the decline in claims was “sufficiently startling to merit a very full and careful analysis of its causes; and if there are good grounds for concluding that part of it is accounted for by claimants being realistically unable to afford to bring proceedings the level of fees and/or the remission criteria will need to be revisited”.

Charles Urquart, partner at Clyde & Co, says: “Whilst this decision is good news for employers, as the fee related barrier to entry to bring employment tribunal claims remains in place, it will not be welcomed by low paid employees who feel obligated to bring a claim but who may be priced out of doing so.”

On the government review, Urquart says: “Employers can probably be more relaxed in the knowledge that the government will be reviewing its own law and that, as a result, the fee regime (in one form or another) is probably here to stay—at least for the duration of the present government.”

Issue: 7666 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hugh James—Phil Edwards

Hugh James—Phil Edwards

Serious injury teambolstered by high-profile partner hire

Freeths—Melanie Stancliffe

Freeths—Melanie Stancliffe

Firm strengthens employment team with partner hire

DAC Beachcroft—Tim Barr

DAC Beachcroft—Tim Barr

Lawyers’ liability practice strengthened with partner appointment in London

NEWS
Ceri Morgan, knowledge counsel at Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP, analyses the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd, which reshapes the law of fiduciary relationships and common law bribery
The boundaries of media access in family law are scrutinised by Nicholas Dobson in NLJ this week
Reflecting on personal experience, Professor Graham Zellick KC, Senior Master of the Bench and former Reader of the Middle Temple, questions the unchecked power of parliamentary privilege
Geoff Dover, managing director at Heirloom Fair Legal, sets out a blueprint for ethical litigation funding in the wake of high-profile law firm collapses
James Grice, head of innovation and AI at Lawfront, explores how artificial intelligence is transforming the legal sector
back-to-top-scroll