To continue reading please register or login to your OHW+ account.
Employment tribunal fees are unlawful under both UK and EU law because they prevent access to justice, the Supreme Court has ruled.Podcast: The abolition of employment tribunal fees XpertHR employment law editor Laura Merrylees is joined by Laurie Anstis, a director with Boyes Turner LLP, to discuss the implications of the Supreme Court's judgment.
6 comments
Great, this is going to kick off all these unscrupulous claims again with no merit. The unions will love this, thank you out of touch judges.
It is totally correct for the Government to return the fees already paid.
However as Rachel Suff states in your article: : “Given the staggering drop in claims since tribunal fees were introduced in 2013, it’s clear that the fees were denying access to justice for many people. Sadly, this suggests that some perfectly valid claims have never been heard.â€Â
Surely these people have the right to bring their claims and the rules should be temporarily changed to allow for claims from the last 4 years outside of the normal claim time limits. There are already some precedents for claims later than the normal 3 months.
I appreciate that this may be administratively difficult and the system may well be inundated but what is more important? Is it the tribunal system or is it justice?
A completely ridiculous decision and there are strong mechanisms in place to assist those who cannot afford the fees.
Statements about ‘law-breaking bosses’ and ‘unscrupulous employers no longer have the upper hand’ are sad attempts at headline grabbing.
I disagree with the CIPD that the introduction of fees and the resulting drop in claims certainly doesn’t suggest ‘that some perfectly valid claims have never been heard.â€Â
What it does mean is that the requirement that both employees and employers must engage in arbitration through the excellent services of ACAS results in the majority of issues being settled without recourse to tribunal.
Guys – you’ve read the press summary for this rather than the Judgment. The press summary incorrectly states that the SC found the fees discriminatory, whereas the Judgment (Lady Hale at para. 133)states that ‘there is no greater disadvantage by the higher fees than are all other Type B claimants. They are all in the same boat, the women who bring discrimination claims and the men who bring unfair dismissal claims…..’.
Just FYI. I had to re read it cos I thought I’d made a mistake from reading it yesterday.
Mike
Mike, My understanding is that Lady Hale accepted (in the paragraphs preceding 132 and 133) that the fees system is indirectly discriminatory because: (1) Type B cases (including discrimination claims) attract a higher fee, and a higher proportion of women bring type B claims than bring type A claims, placing women at a particular disadvantage. Unison quotes figures of 54% of type B claimants being women and only 37% of type A claimants being women, so the higher fee for type B claims has a disparate impact on women compared to men. (2) It was not demonstrated that the higher fees for type B claims could be justified as a proportionate means of achieving the stated aims of the fees regime. In 134, Lady Hale concludes that “it is accepted that the higher fees generally have a disparate impact and in my view it has not been shown that they are justifiedâ€Â. Thanks, Stephen
The Executive waited until the final day’s sitting of Parliament on 20th July to ‘dump the trash’ of dozens of controversial reports and official documents they knew no-one would be around to criticise during the long Summer Break. It is nice to know that the Judiciary ‘returned the serve’ by issuing a jaw-breaking judgment on 26th July their Lordships will have known that no-one would be around to neutralise with a knee-jerk legislative response!