Head of employment law at specialist employment law firm Law At Work, Margaret Anne Clark discusses the impact of the abolition of tribunal fees.
Legacy tribunal claims from former employees may be able to be brought in the employment tribunal now that fees have been abolished. Potential claimants include those whose claims were rejected because they did not pay a fee or those who allege they were prevented from raising claims because of the cost.
Last year, the judicial review on employment tribunal fees was one of the biggest developments in employment law. Following the Supreme Court ruling in July 2017 that charges were unlawful there was an unprecedented surge in claims, with a 64% increase recorded between July and September 2017 – reaching the highest number since fees were introduced in 2013.
The tribunal service has not yet confirmed how it will treat claims which were lodged in time but rejected because the fee was not paid (or because an application for fee remission was unsuccessful). Since the claims did not make it past the initial stage, employers may never have been made aware that they existed. It is believed that the tribunal service may be writing to these claimants- apparently some 7,500 in number- to ask whether they wish their claim to be reinstated. If the claims are re-instated, it is unlikely that an employer would be able to argue that they are time-barred.
 |
Get our essential weekday HR news and updates.
|
It is also unclear whether tribunals will consider accepting new claims in which the claimant alleges they were put off from taking court action because of the cost of fees. Guidance issued by the tribunal service suggests that new claims should be considered judicially “in the usual way”. By this it is assumed that claims will have to be raised now and would be treated as out of time. Claimants would have to show that there is a valid reason for over-ruling the current time limit which states claims must be brought within three months.
Initially it was assumed that new claimants would have to provide evidence to show that they could not afford to bring a claim at any time. However, we are aware of at least one recent case in which a tribunal allowed an out-of-time historic claim to proceed without requiring the claimant to bring detailed evidence about their inability to pay a fee during the currency of the fee regime.
Assuming that other tribunals take the same approach, the door could be open for a deluge of historic claims (whether they are re-instated or “fresh”) to find their way to tribunal. It is difficult to predict which potential ex-employees may come back to haunt their employers. However, while uncertainty remains, employers should consider conducting an audit of their records to identify high-risk dismissals made during the time that fees applied.
The effectiveness of the ACAS early conciliation service may also be impacted now that fees have been abolished. An independent study published in 2016 found that seven out of 10 claimants avoided proceeding to the hearing stage through use of the service. However, faced at that time with a fee of £950 for a hearing, the impact of the service may have been overstated.
In the meantime, practical steps for employers include investing in training for employees at management level and within HR teams on how to deal with tribunal claims. They may also want to revisit the tribunal litigation terms outlined in their insurance policies and consider whether these need to be adjusted.
When it comes to tribunal claims, there is no substitute for getting it right first time and avoiding a claim altogether. Training on disciplinary procedures, and a policy audit, are worth the investment when the alternative is a potential award or a costly settlement agreement.
Law at Work, which provides support to more than 400 clients, has dealt with a 22% increase in tribunal claims in the six months from July 2017 until January 2018. While it has an enviable track record for defending such claims, the cost for clients who do not have sufficient insurance cover, or decide not to opt for the company’s fixed fee service, can be significant.
Margaret Anne Clark is Head of Employment Law at Law at Work.
Margaret Anne is a skilled solicitor and has worked with Law At Work since 2003. As Head of Employment Law, she advises clients on all aspects of employment law; with particular expertise in discrimination, equal pay and equality matters - and also has extensive experience of advising on redundancies, business reorganisations and TUPE. Margaret Anne is a tutor in the Diploma in Legal Practice at the University of Strathclyde.
