Legal battle to block employment tribunal fees

-

Employment lawyers went to the Court of Session this week to halt plans by the Ministry of Justice to introduce fees for those wanting to proceed through the employment tribunal service with claims for lost wages, discrimination or unfair dismissal.

It could see workers forced to pay up to £950 to have the most serious cases heard following the reforms, the first of their kind since the tribunal system was set up more than 50 years ago.

The UK Government claims the changes will move some of the £74 million cost of running tribunals from the taxpayer to those who use the system.

But concerns have been raised that the fees will deter workers from pursuing bosses and restrain access to justice.

Get our essential weekday HR news and updates.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Keep up with the latest in HR...
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
Optin_date
This field is hidden when viewing the form

 

Edinburgh firm Fox and Partners sought to obtain an interim interdict to halt the introduction of the fee structure, due to be applied to new cases starting on or after July 29.

Lord Bannatyne did not issue the order but instead opted to continue to a full hearing to make further investigation into whether the introduction of fees is legal.

If they are found to be unlawful, all fees will be refunded.

During the sitting, it emerged that drafting errors relating to equal pay claims are contained within the new policy just two weeks before it is due to be implemented.

Fox and Partners said Lord Bannatyne had been critical in court of the Lord Chancellor’s departments’ conduct of the two-day hearing, stating it had been “a complete waste of time” with expenses awarded to Fox and Partners as a result.

Scottish Judiciary were unable to confirm the remark last night, with Lord Bannatyne yet to post his written opinion online.

Carol Fox, of Fox and Partners, which is currently representing 12,500 equal claim cases, said: “We are very pleased with this outcome. While we are naturally disappointed not to obtain the interdict, we are pleased that in taking this legal action against the government and the imposition of fees we have raised fundamental principles regarding access to justice.

“We have obtained very significant concessions and points of clarification from the government. Further we are delighted that we have been awarded full expenses and that the Judge agreed that we have raised very important matters of law on behalf of claimants.”

Ms Fox said the reforms would particularly impact low-paid women undertaking equal-pay claims. She added: “During the course of these proceedings it became clear that the Ministry of Justice is in disarray.

“The wise course of action would be for the Minister to take time to consider the drafting errors and the points of law as well as the 140 consultation responses. We believe that the evidence is overwhelmingly against the introduction of fees.”

Claimants will now pay in advance an issue fee to bring the case and a second hearing fee. A basic Type A claim, for areas such as holiday pay, will be £160, rising to £250 for a more complex case such as discrimination.

The hearing fees are £230 for a basic case, rising to £950 for the more serious issues.

A Ministry of Justice source did not accept that court time had been wasted, with defence presenting its case at short notice, or that the department was in disarray over the changes.

Courts Minister Helen Grant said: “It is not fair on the taxpayer to foot the entire £74m bill for people to escalate workplace disputes to a tribunal. We want people, where they can afford to do so, to pay a contribution.

“It is in everyone’s interest to avoid drawn-out disputes which emotionally damage workers and financially damage businesses. That’s why we are encouraging quicker, simpler and cheaper alternatives like mediation.

“We are pleased that the court has decided not to prevent the new fee system from coming into effect on 29 July.”

Latest news

Personalising the Benefits Experience: Why Employees Need More Than Just Information

This article explores how organisations can move beyond passive, one-size-fits-all communication to deliver relevant, timely, and simplified benefits experiences that reflect employee needs and life stages.

Grant Wyatt: When the love dies – when staying is riskier than quitting

When people fall out of love with their employer, or feel their employer has fallen out of love with them, what follows is rarely a clean exit.

£30bn pension savings window opens for employers ahead of 2029 reforms

UK employers could unlock billions in National Insurance savings by expanding pension salary sacrifice schemes before new limits take effect in 2029.

Expat jobs ‘fail early as costs hit $79,000 per worker’

International assignments are ending early due to family strain, isolation and poor preparation, as rising costs increase pressure on employers.
- Advertisement -

The Great Employer Divide: What the evidence shows about employers that back parents and carers — and those that don’t

Understand the growing divide between organisations that effectively support working parents and carers — and those that don’t. This session shows how to turn employee experience data into a clear business case, linking care-related pressures to performance, retention and workforce stability.

Scott Mills exit puts spotlight on risk of ‘news vacuum’ in high-profile dismissals

Sudden departure of a long-serving BBC presenter raises questions about how employers manage high-profile dismissals and limit speculation.

Must read

James Uffindell: Why do so few people find their jobs through social networking?

Whilst social networking is the most significant force to...

Richard Evens: Careful of the cold

The recent cold weather and snowfall across the UK...
- Advertisement -

You might also likeRELATED
Recommended to you