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

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