header-logo header-logo

08 September 2017 / Tessa Fry , Tessa Fry
Issue: 7760 / Categories: Opinion , Tribunals , Employment
printer mail-detail

Fall-out from Unison

Unfair should not mean unlawful, says Tessa Fry

The Supreme Court ruling that tribunal fees are unlawful is surprising given that most of the evidence was rejected in two cases before the High Court and subsequently the Court of Appeal. By contrast, the Supreme Court accepted almost all Unison’s arguments some of which were based on hypothetical examples and assumptions, rather than actual evidence ( R (on the application of Unison) v Lord Chancellor [2017] UKSC 51, [2017] All ER (D) 174 (Jul)).

While the Court of Appeal was sympathetic to Unison’s arguments, it did not consider the evidence provided to be a safe basis for concluding that the Fees Order was unlawful. The Supreme Court, however, ruled that the Fees Order effectively prevents access to justice and is therefore unlawful. In other words, the fees are unfair, therefore they are unlawful.

There was no dispute in either court that since the fees were introduced, the number of tribunal claims had declined substantially. However, the Court of Appeal held that figures relating to

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

Clarke Willmott—Megan Bradbury

Clarke Willmott—Megan Bradbury

Corporate team welcomes paralegal in Southampton

Howard Kennedy—Paul Moran

Howard Kennedy—Paul Moran

London firm strengthens real estate team with partner appointment

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

NEWS
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
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
back-to-top-scroll