Supreme Court rules Employment Tribunal fees are unlawful

Employment & HR News

26 July, 2017

Today (26 July 2017), the Supreme Court has ruled that the Employment Tribunals and the Employment Appeal Tribunals Fees Order 2013 is unlawful, unconstitutional and will be quashed with immediate effect. This serves as a prominent example of the Courts being willing to limit Governmental legislative power.

2013 saw the controversial introduction of Employment Tribunal fees which meant that employees wanting to pursue a case against an employer could be required to pay up to £1,200 in fees out of their own pocket, unless they were eligible for fee remission. The driving force behind the Fees Order was the desire to impose some of the cost burden of running Tribunals onto people using the Tribunals, to encourage early settlement and to dissuade employees from bringing claims at the Employment Tribunal which did not enjoy reasonable prospects of success. Of course, Tribunal fees paid out by employees were always recoverable in the event of a claim being successful at Tribunal, however there has always been concern that the introduction of fees has acted as a deterrent to employees with genuine valid claims against their employer in bringing the claim in the first place.

The issue to be determined by the Supreme Court was whether the Fees Order had the potential to effectively prevent access to justice. In order for the fees to be lawful they had to be set at an affordable level, taking into account the availability of fee remission. The evidence, which included figures that revealed that the number of tribunal claims brought had reduced by as much as 70 per cent since the fees came into force, led to the conclusion that this requirement was not met. Therefore, the Fees Order prevented access to justice and as such was unlawful. Further, the Court held that the Fees Order imposed unjustified limitations on the ability to enforce EU rights and was as such was also unlawful under EU law.

Lord Reed, handing down the Court's ruling stated that the introduction of fees:

"Have resulted in such a substantial and sustained fall in the number of claims being brought that it points to the conclusion that a significant number of people have found the fees unaffordable."

Baroness Hale also held that the Fees Order was indirectly discriminatory under S.19 of the Equality Act 2010 because the fees for bringing Type B claims (which includes discrimination claims) are higher than bringing Type A claims. It was held that as a higher proportion of women bring Type B claims than bring Type A claims, women are placed at a particular disadvantage compared with men.

What does this mean for Employers?

The most predictable and likely outcome of the decision is that the number of claims being brought at the Employment Tribunal will increase given the quashing of the Fees Order with immediate effect. However, it is still not certain that the Fees Regime will be abolished in its entirety it may be that we will see a reduction in the cost of fees and/or the government will go on to implement a more proportionate and affordable fees regime, however, a reduction in fees would still be likely to contribute to an increase in claims.

It is also likely that those who have brought a claim since July 2013 and have paid the relevant Tribunal fees will have their money refunded. Unison have indicated that this will amount to more than £27m, a cost which will be borne by the Lord Chancellor's Department. This leaves open the possibility that employers who have been ordered to pay Tribunal fees back to a Claimant following the loss of an employment tribunal claim may be able to claim the cost of those fees back too, however whether this will be possible remains to be seen.

Another hypothetical impact of the decision is that this could open the door for Claimants to argue that they were deterred from bringing a legitimate claim at the Tribunal because they could not afford to pay the fees involved at the time. It may be that Tribunals will allow extensions of the basic 3 month time limit to bring a claim at the Employment Tribunal on the basis that (in the case of unfair dismissal claims) it was not reasonably practicable to bring a claim when a Claimant could not afford to do so by a fees regime which has since been declared unlawful, or (in the case of discrimination claims) it could be argued that it is just and equitable to extend time for bringing a claim in light of this decision.

The immediate impact of the decision however, is that it is no longer lawful for Claimants to be made to pay Tribunal Fees in accordance with the Fees Order in order to bring a claim against their employer. In fact, Employment Tribunals are now refusing to take fee payments where physical Claim Forms are being lodged in hard copy at certain Tribunals.Therefore, it is prudent for employers to prepare themselves for the likelihood of an increase in Employment Tribunal claims being issued against them in the near future.

For more information contact Laura Marsh by email laura.marsh@forbessolicitors.co.uk or call a member of the employment team on 01772 220022.

Back

07 Sep 2018

Employment & HR

NEWS AND ARTICLES

The Supreme Court dismisses challenge to content of Enhanced Criminal Record Certificate

R, a teacher, issued proceedings in December 2012 challenging the lawfulness of the inclusion of a past…

Read the article

We find that the Forbes team take a pragmatic and supportive approach and enjoy working with their team.

Jayne Mizon
HR Manager
Kepak Convenience Foods

More clients

We approached Forbes Solicitors on a recommendation because as a small independent organisation we needed clear guidance and backing on HR matters.

Stephen Neaves
Manager
Piccadilly Garden & Support Service

More clients

The Forbes team were fantastic, the work and effort they put in was impressive and I was made to feel at ease throughout the proceedings. I can not thank the Forbes team enough

Peter Morley

More clients

Without doubt Jonathan Holden is like a security blanket. He understands that schools need to act in the best interest of school as a whole

Brenda P Allen
FCIPD

More clients

Jennifer was great and worked beyond the call of duty. No faults.

James Darby

More clients

I will keep promoting you and your services because I'm fully committed to the quality of your work and the impact that it has in school.

Sharon Asquith
Principal
Ashton Community Science College

More clients

Amy Stokes was more than helpful throughout the whole process - Thank you Amy.

Stephen Fielden

More clients

Forbes are proactive in relation to changes in legislation and keep me informed via regular seminars, updates and bulletins.

Nicola Watson
Business Support Manager
Birchall Catering Supplies Ltd

More clients

I have always found everyone at Forbes to be approachable, helpful and professional, and would have no hesitation in recommending them to any other business

Catherine Ogden
Commercial Director
E A Foulds Limited

More clients

May I say how much the employment team at Forbes have helped Samlesbury Hall with staff issues over the past ten years.

Sharon Jones
Hall Director
Samlesbury Hall

More clients

...we have found Forbes to be an excellent team of people to work with, fully understanding our needs and goals.

Landon Helsby
Managing Director
Apeks Marine Equipment Ltd.

More clients

Make an enquiry