March 2018

B efore July 2013 individuals were free to bring Employment Tribunal claims. However, in July 2013 the government introduced Employment Tribunal fees for anyone wanting to make a claim or appeal a judgment. The fee to lodge a claim was £160 or £250 (dependent upon the nature of the claim) and the fee to pursue the matter to a final hearing was a further £230 or £950 (again dependent upon the nature of the claim). If employees won their claim, the tribunal judge could order the employer to pay any fees incurred. According to Chloe Themistocleous, an associate at Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP, after the introduction of tribunal fees the number of claims being brought fell by 80%, but the ratio of claims being successful did not change and so the introduction of fees did little to deter spurious claims. “Clearly,” says Chloe, “some individuals were deterred from making claims due to the cost. Whilst a remission system was in place to help the poorest people, by reducing or waiving the fees, those who missed out on a remission had no choice but to pay the fees or not make a claim; many simply did not want to take the risk.” Supreme Court decision It appears that while claim numbers were dropping, unrest in trade unions was growing and so Unison decided to challenge the government’s implementation of the fee regime, claiming not only that it was unlawful but that it indirectly discriminated against women. Chloe says this was not by any means an easy task as both the High Court and Court of Appeal rejected the claim. “However, at the end of July 2017, the Supreme Court quashed the tribunal fee regime giving judgment that it was both unlawful and indirectly discriminatory.” Effectively the Supreme Court decided that the government acted outside its powers when it introduced fees at current levels, because the fees effectively prevent access to justice. What does this mean? The ruling means a number of things. Chloe explains: “As a result of the judgment no further fees can be charged by the Employment Tribunal until a replacement scheme is introduced.” This means new claims can now be brought for free again and no hearing fees will be charged claims already lodged. She adds that as for those who have already paid tribunal fees, the Ministry of Justice has undertaken to reimburse fees already paid. Of course, without the deterrent effect of fees, employers now face an increased risk of employment-related claims from current and former staff. Worryingly, Chloe says it is also possible that some individuals might now try to claim they should be permitted to bring out-of-time claims in respect of past alleged breaches of their rights, “arguing that the now found to be high and unlawful fees prevented them from bringing a claim.” When a replacement system will be debated and passed by parliament is unknown - it could be months or even longer. The Supreme Court ruling gives parliament a lot of ‘food for thought’, but so far, it is unclear what shape a replacement scheme would take. As Chloe sees it, while there is a window of opportunity to submit a claim without paying a fee, it is likely that employees will take it. “Claim numbers are expected to rise, but whether they will rise to the levels they were at prior to the introduction of tribunal fees is unknown. If they do, it is unlikely that the current tribunal system, with a reduced number of hearing centres, judges and clerks, could cope.” With time, if a new fees regime is introduced and once the media attention has died down, the number of claims will level, but, in the meantime, employers must watch and wait. 12 AFTERMARKET MARCH 2018 BUSINESS www.aftermarketonline.net PART ONE EMPLOYERS IN THE FIRING LINE A recent Supreme Court case has opened the floodgates for employees wanting to bring claims against their employers by removing the fees they need to pay BY Adam Bernstein Next month: How to protect your business from claims being made