header-logo header-logo

20 October 2017
Categories: Legal News , Tribunals , Employment
printer mail-detail

Unlawful employment tribunal fees to be paid back

The government is to pay back all employment tribunal fees—ruled unlawful by the Supreme Court in July—along with 0.5% interest.

It will be paid in stages. In the first stage, the government will contact about 1,000 people who have applied for refunds concerning single claims. The scheme will be opened up four weeks later to everyone else who paid fees.

Those who paid fees can register online at ethelpwithfees@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk or by post at Employment Tribunal Central Office (England and Wales)/Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) Fees, PO Box 10218, Leicester LE1 8EG.

The government said it is also working with trade unions who have supported large multiple claims potentially involving hundreds of claimants.

Trade union Unison won a historic victory in R (Unison) v Lord Chancellor [2017] UKSC 51, with seven Justices unanimously holding that the government acted unlawfully in introducing fees ranging from £160 to £230 or £950 for further hearings, and as much as £1,200 for certain claims, in July 2013.

Employment lawyers have been expectantly waiting to see how the government would go about paying back the fees. They have highlighted how, while some people paid the unlawful fees, others will have been deterred from bringing their claims.

Unison head of legal services Adam Creme said: ‘The government is now making good on its promise to refund anyone who was unfairly charged to take their employers to court.

‘The government got it very wrong on fees, as ministers found to their cost when they lost at the Supreme Court in the summer. But the real tragedy of the fees fiasco is the thousands of wronged employees who couldn’t afford to shell out to get justice and so lost out. Nothing can be done to help them, or to bring the many unscrupulous employers, who broke the law and got away with it, to court.’

The government has said, in response to a Parliamentary question, that the estimated cost of refunding the fees is £33m.

Categories: Legal News , Tribunals , Employment
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
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
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll