header-logo header-logo

Ministry rejects arguments over fees

02 February 2017
Issue: 7733 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

The introduction of the controversial employment tribunal fees “broadly met its objectives”, a Ministry of Justice (MoJ) review has concluded.

However, the MoJ has acknowledged that the fees are deterring some claims, and launched a consultation on proposals to reform the Help with Fees scheme to extend the scope of support available to people on lower incomes.

Since July 2013, it has cost £160–£250 to issue a claim, and £230–£950 for a hearing. Groups pay higher fees of £320–£1,500 to issue claims and £460–£5,700 for a hearing.

Lawyers have consistently argued that the fees are preventing many claimants bringing cases, as shown by a drastic drop in number of claims following their introduction. Trades Union Congress General Secretary Frances O’Grady said the government was “turning a blind eye” to the impact of fees, and pointed out that the review referred to a 68% fall in the number of claims brought.

In the consultation paper, the MoJ concedes that the fall in claims “has been significant and much greater than originally estimated” and that there is “some evidence that some people who have been unable to resolve their disputes through conciliation have been discouraged from bringing a formal claim because of the requirement to pay a fee”.

However, Justice minister Sir Oliver Heald said more people are now using Acas’s free conciliation service than were previously using voluntary conciliation and bringing claims combined, and that nearly half of all Acas referrals do not proceed to tribunal. He said the fees were generating between £8.5m and £9m income annually, which was “in line with what we expected”.

The MoJ proposals for reform, set out in the review paper, Review of the introduction of fees in the Employment Tribunals, include exempting people earning £1,250 a month or less (up from its current threshold of £1,085), with additional allowances for people living as couples or who have children to support. Certain proceedings for recovery from the National Insurance Fund, such as redundancy payment claims from insolvent employers, are to be exempt, with immediate effect.

Law Society president Robert Bourns said: “The minister asserts there is 'no evidence to suggest' the fees are limiting access to justice—but the evidence in his own report suggests that tens of thousands of people are slipping through the cracks.

“The truth is employment tribunal fees have had a chilling effect on the number of people able or willing to bring a case against their employer. Particularly affected are claims in areas such as sexual discrimination and equal pay—and the reduction in tribunal cases is not offset by the increase in people using ACAS’s early conciliation service.”

Employment lawyer Carolyn Brown, who heads accountancy giant RSM's client legal services practice, said: “In the immediate aftermath of fees charging a massive drop of around 80% in claims was found in some research.

“Ever since, the Unions have been calling for the measure to be scrapped and unsuccessful legal challenges have followed. Female claimants losing pay or jobs during maternity absence were particularly badly affected by the measure.

“Now the government has announced a tinkering with the tribunal fees remission scheme for low income groups and yet another period of consultation. There is good news for some though.

“Fees are removed for those who have to claim through the tribunal for some statutory amounts such as pay arrears, notice pay and holiday pay which is paid by the government when their employer is insolvent.”  

Issue: 7733 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Kingsley Napley—Claire Green

Kingsley Napley—Claire Green

Firm announces appointment of chief legal officer

Weightmans—Emma Eccles & Mark Woodall

Weightmans—Emma Eccles & Mark Woodall

Firm bolsters Manchester insurance practice with double partner appointment

Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

Partner joins family law team inLondon

NEWS
The landmark Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd—along with Rukhadze v Recovery Partners—redefine fiduciary duties in commercial fraud. Writing in NLJ this week, Mary Young of Kingsley Napley analyses the implications of the rulings
Barristers Ben Keith of 5 St Andrew’s Hill and Rhys Davies of Temple Garden Chambers use the arrest of Simon Leviev—the so-called Tinder Swindler—to explore the realities of Interpol red notices, in this week's NLJ
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys [2025] has upended assumptions about who may conduct litigation, warn Kevin Latham and Fraser Barnstaple of Kings Chambers in this week's NLJ. But is it as catastrophic as first feared?
Lord Sales has been appointed to become the Deputy President of the Supreme Court after Lord Hodge retires at the end of the year
Limited liability partnerships (LLPs) are reportedly in the firing line in Chancellor Rachel Reeves upcoming Autumn budget
back-to-top-scroll