Job tribunal fees illegal

Crazy_Jamie

TELLIT01 wrote: »

Can they even do it via primary legislation? It wasn't the way it was done which was deemed unlawful, it was virtually every element of it fell foul of one other law or another. The bit of the news I heard about it today even claimed that it was in breach of Magna Carta.

The government's problem here was that there is a common law right to access to justice (which can be traced back to the Magna Carta, hence that reference). Interference with that right requires primary legislation (and therefore the full engagement of parliament). In the absence of primary legislation, that right can only be interfered with to the extent that is reasonably required to achieve a legitimate aim. The aim here was legitimate, but there was a clear risk (and, indeed, clear evidence) that the method of implementation (i.e. the fees) impeded access to justice in a way that was not justifiable.

So the short answer is that yes, the government could still introduce fees via primary legislation. And it may well do so to some degree. The issue, however, is that the issue of tribunal fees has now become a major public relations problem. If the government attempts to bring fees back in, it will instantly be a prominent story in the press. The government will therefore have to be very careful that any such steps are reasonable, because the wider public are now aware of tribunal fees, and the majority view will be that they are negative. I expect there will at the very least be period of time before any attempt is made to bring them back in, but given the press coverage on this issue any proposal to bring them back will have to be worded very carefully to ensure that it even passes, because if there is any doubt in that regard I expect most MPs will want to play it safe and not risk being associated with bringing in a measure that the courts have already rejected as being unlawful.

aife

bignred05 wrote: »

I did pay the fees, but I won so the employer had to pay me the fees for daring to take them on shall we say.
- But you still got your money back, so nothing to be refunded




Thanks, worth a try

How ironic when last year a former colleague was scared off going down the tribunal route when I advised him on the amount involved, even after I said you get it back if you win

- I don't think it's ironic , but it illustrates the unfairness of the fees. Not everyone has the money to risk , regardless of the merits of their case

aife

Crazy_Jamie wrote: »

The government's problem here was that there is a common law right to access to justice (which can be traced back to the Magna Carta, hence that reference). Interference with that right requires primary legislation (and therefore the full engagement of parliament). In the absence of primary legislation, that right can only be interfered with to the extent that is reasonably required to achieve a legitimate aim. The aim here was legitimate, but there was a clear risk (and, indeed, clear evidence) that the method of implementation (i.e. the fees) impeded access to justice in a way that was not justifiable.

So the short answer is that yes, the government could still introduce fees via primary legislation. And it may well do so to some degree. The issue, however, is that the issue of tribunal fees has now become a major public relations problem. If the government attempts to bring fees back in, it will instantly be a prominent story in the press. The government will therefore have to be very careful that any such steps are reasonable, because the wider public are now aware of tribunal fees, and the majority view will be that they are negative. I expect there will at the very least be period of time before any attempt is made to bring them back in, but given the press coverage on this issue any proposal to bring them back will have to be worded very carefully to ensure that it even passes, because if there is any doubt in that regard I expect most MPs will want to play it safe and not risk being associated with bringing in a measure that the courts have already rejected as being unlawful.

- and it's now a much weaker government which might struggle to get any further attempts through parliament. Unless they promise their new allies they'll spend money earned from the fees on painting the Houses of parliament orange and erecting a statue of King Billy in Trafalgar Square

benj111

Good news this. I had been attempting to bring a case but they wanted £1200 even though as their website says "You can have up to £16,000 in savings if your fee is between £1,000 and £10,000" what they neglect to say is this is per household and a £950 fee and £250 fee don't count ?!?
Anyway I've written back to them to ask them to proceed with the case. Outside of the cut off time (just), but I did everything except pay the (now illegal) fee, so will see what they say.

benj111

As a heads up to anyone else in my situation the tribunal service has got back to me they are proceeding with my claim.

"[FONT=&quot]I have now processed your claim due to the the decision made by the Supreme Court on 26.07.2017 regarding employment tribunal fees

It has now been forwarded on to your local office which is [Redacted] ET.

They will be in touch with you shortly regarding your claim."

[/FONT]To be clear I filled in all the claims forms etc on time, the only thing I didn't do was pay the fee which needed doing by 5/7/17, although I appealed which gave me an extra 2 weeks I believe so I was a week outside the deadline.
I have no idea how long outside of the deadline they would deem to be acceptable but if you've filed a claim but didn't pay the fee it may be worth taking it up with them again, preferably before the gov't closes the loop hole that has opened up.

Undervalued

benj111 wrote: »

As a heads up to anyone else in my situation the tribunal service has got back to me they are proceeding with my claim.

"[FONT=&quot]I have now processed your claim due to the the decision made by the Supreme Court on 26.07.2017 regarding employment tribunal fees

It has now been forwarded on to your local office which is [Redacted] ET.

They will be in touch with you shortly regarding your claim."

[/FONT]To be clear I filled in all the claims forms etc on time, the only thing I didn't do was pay the fee which needed doing by 5/7/17, although I appealed which gave me an extra 2 weeks I believe so I was a week outside the deadline.
I have no idea how long outside of the deadline they would deem to be acceptable but if you've filed a claim but didn't pay the fee it may be worth taking it up with them again, preferably before the gov't closes the loop hole that has opened up.

I hope that works out for you.

However, keep in mind that what you have received today is a letter from an administrative person saying that they are passing the claim on to the relevant office. Sadly that doesn't mean your employer's lawyers can't or won't try to argue that your claim is out of time. I fear it may need a test case taken to appeal to resolve that question for you and potentially many others.

benj111

Undervalued wrote: »

I hope that works out for you.

However, keep in mind that what you have received today is a letter from an administrative person saying that they are passing the claim on to the relevant office. Sadly that doesn't mean your employer's lawyers can't or won't try to argue that your claim is out of time. I fear it may need a test case taken to appeal to resolve that question for you and potentially many others.

I had considered that but A) the admin person wouldn't have sent that without getting the ok from above and I did everything by the deadlines, it was they that prevented me from proceeding with the case.

I'm more concerned about the tribunal service deciding I'm out of time rather than the defendant, I can't imagine a judge taking kindly to that reasoning from an employer. Also there is the risk that it gets bumped up to a higher court to decide which would take time and probably end up being expensive for the employer and their lawyers, so I'm not even sure it would be in the employers interest to make that argument.

But we shall see!

Undervalued

benj111 wrote: »

I had considered that but A) the admin person wouldn't have sent that without getting the ok from above and I did everything by the deadlines, it was they that prevented me from proceeding with the case.

I'm more concerned about the tribunal service deciding I'm out of time rather than the defendant, I can't imagine a judge taking kindly to that reasoning from an employer. Also there is the risk that it gets bumped up to a higher court to decide which would take time and probably end up being expensive for the employer and their lawyers, so I'm not even sure it would be in the employers interest to make that argument.

But we shall see!

I hope, for your sake, you are right. However, neither the admin person or whoever gave the "OK from above" make the law and I will be amazed if your former employer's don't ask for your case to be struck out.

If, as you hope, the judge rules in your favour then it comes down to whether they take it to the EAT. Only a decision there would set a precedent. Unless your case has the potential for a high award (and most ET's don't and average around £6K) the employer may well decide it is cheaper to settle.

If however the judge rules in their favour then you will have quite a dilemma.

Best of luck.

Beartricks

aife wrote: »

- I don't think it's ironic , but it illustrates the unfairness of the fees. Not everyone has the money to risk , regardless of the merits of their case

I think a big problem is that it's incredibly biased against people with lower incomes. When you're on the bottom rungs of society and have no choice but to take a job in places that can and do take advantage of their employees, employment becomes more about weighing up the potential benefits of challenging an employer legally vs putting up with more than you should have to just to feed your kids.

If you're an executive for whom legal fees would barely put a dent in your finances, and with enough of a reputation and track record that you can justify having taken an employer to court then you have far less to risk. If you're working at high street retailer X, you risk spending months fighting a legal battle that you're not sure you can win, will probably be out of a job either way, and the fees might constitute a few months of saving up whatever's left after rent and utilities and childcare. Then once you try to get a new job, you're the person who took your last employer to court over something that any new place may or may not also be guilty of.