header-logo header-logo

Tribunal fees get the push

27 July 2017
Issue: 7756 / Categories: Legal News , Tribunals , Employment
printer mail-detail

Employment tribunal fees are unlawful under both EU law and domestic law, the Supreme Court has unanimously held.

The fees, which range from £160 to £1,200, were introduced in 2013 and led to a reduction of up to 70% in the number of claims brought forward in 2014-15 and 2015-16.

Unison lost its case at the High Court and the Court of Appeal. However, seven Justices ruled in its favour this week, in R (oao Unison) v Lord Chancellor [2017] UKSC 51. Delivering the lead judgment, Lord Reed said: ‘In order for the fees to be lawful, they have to be set at a level that everyone can afford, taking into account the availability of full or partial remission.

‘The fall in the number of claims has been so sharp, so substantial, and so sustained as to warrant the conclusion that a significant number of people who would otherwise have brought claims have found the fees to be unaffordable.’

He said the unaffordability of the fees meant they imposed ‘limitations on the exercise of EU rights which are disproportionate, and… therefore unlawful under EU law.’ Further, the fees contravened the Equality Act 2010 as they disproportionately affected women.

Elaine Motion, executive chairman of Balfour+Manson, which acted for the Independent Workers Union of Great Britain (IWUGB) in the case, said: ‘This is the one of the most significant judgments in employment law in the modern era.

‘All the evidence pointed to fees denying the principle of access to justice—and the Supreme Court's decision is therefore a resounding victory for justice itself.’ 

Sarah Rushton, employment partner at Moon Beever, said that the employment tribunal system had been thrown into chaos: ‘The Supreme Court has ruled that employment tribunal fees are unlawful and has acknowledged that they are a barrier to justice ordering that all fees paid since 2013 must now be refunded. Not any easy task where the respondent may have been ordered to pay them. The current online application form will need an urgent review and it will be interesting to see if there will now be a deluge of claims from applicants who might have otherwise been put off.’ 

David Isaac, Equality and Human Rights Commission Chair, which intervened in the case, said thousands of people may have been ‘priced out of getting justice’, and called for the current policy to be scrapped. He called the judgment ‘a damning verdict on the current regime’.

Issue: 7756 / Categories: Legal News , Tribunals , Employment
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