Employment Tribunal Fees Unlawful, Supreme Court Rules

[mikey4444]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40727400

Huge disappointment for this vengeful Government, and not before time.

[murraymints]

just seen this and been on phone to friend to get his money back !

[fiction-factory]

Well not quite this governement - there have been 2 elections since then. The system is abused by some vexatious claimants who it wa sthought were clogging up the system, but overall I think it's right it should be free- or at least a lowish charge which is refunded if a claim is won

[jno]

yes, justice should be open to all, not just to those who have a spare £1200.

[douglas9401]

One needs to put government in it's place from time to time.

[fiction-factory]

Just to clarify jno's figure - £1290 was the maximum figure- the fees ranged between £390 and £1,200. The Cameron/Clegg alliance were in charge at the time. Too high for many though and there is no evidence it helped reduce just vexatious claim- it reduced claims across the board

[mikey4444]

I think the Tory Government subscribe to that old adage about British Justice being available everybody, just like the Ritz.

[Deskdiary]

This is a mistake.

By attaching a charge only those who had a genuine reason for bringing a tribunal pursued it - by making it risk free there will be spurious claims.

These spurious claims will add to the workload of all involved, including management time of the company being accused - which is expensive - which can have a detrimental effect on the company.

I have been involved in quite a few spurious claims (one person was consistently late, and after being pulled up on a number of times by her line manager, she resigned and claimed constructive dismissal as a result of bullying - she brought the claim because it was risk free and she just wanted to cause trouble: had there been a charge she would not have brought the claim) and they take up a shed load of management time.....and cost.

[fiction-factory]

There were too many such spurious claims but this was a blunt instrument which has led to a big fall in the number of cases but looking at the proportion of claims that fail it seems to be missing teh target

[TWR]

Desk, I thinks country has ben kicked too many times by this Government.

[fiction-factory]

I don't see why you think the decision (implemented 2013) was vengeful, mikey- there was a reason given which was accepted at the time to be a good reason based on the system being clogged up by vexatious or speculative claims, but I think it was too blunt an instrument. A nominal charge though, refundable in the case of success, would seem reasonable though

[fiction-factory]

The Coalition introduced this though, TWR. The Tories did win the two subsequent elections though many presumably did not feel they had been kicked

[fiction-factory]

^though, SO many presumably...

[Peter Pedant]

well there are always two sides to an action
Desk Diary is quite wrong
and the argument was advanced by the govt in their submissions

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2015-0233-judgment.pdf

and was basically refuted and that was because ..... the reduction had occurred across the board - up to 60% in some sections

so whether or not it was intended to limit the time wasters
all it had done was produce a reduction 'globally'

read all 42 pages if you want....

they drag in 1215 - nulli vendimus - nulli negabimus
we will sell to no man - we will deny to no man ( ... justice and right we will not delay....)

oh para 57
The Lord Chancellor accepts that there is no basis for
concluding that only stronger cases are being litigated.

[well that settles desk diaries unsupported claim .....]

a little later - Coke -
Plena, quia Justitia non debet claudicare; &
Celeris, quia dilatio est quaedam negatio

full - because Justice must not limp - n quig - because justice delayed is justice denied

[ ah come arn - quae dilatio est quedam negatio sounz really good]

with phrases like that
not surprisingly their lordships said
'the fees are all off'

[Peter Pedant]

// there was a reason given which was accepted at the time to be a good reason based on the system being clogged up by vexatious or speculative claims, but I think it was too blunt an instrument. A nominal charge though, refundable in the case of success, would seem reasonable though//

oh dear all these are arguments are considered
no not clogged - but some of the claims are small

the average award is £500 - and if the fee is £260
I am not sure if I would advise anyone to litigate

( small claim I think it would be £80. ALSO considered in the judgement)

initially litigated too early apparently
the surveys showed a reduction

whereas in 2014 - the courts threw out cases of - this may happen and that may happen.

[mikey4444]

DD...the Government lost the Court case, principally because the law was unfair. Poor people deserve access to the law as well as wealthy people.

Unlike other recent Court cases that it has lost, this time Mrs May isn't going to waste any more public money in appealing.

From my link ::::: "The government said it would take steps to stop charging and refund payments"

End of story.

[Deskdiary]

It is the end of the story Mikey - you are spot on.

Doesn't make it right though in my view.

PP - I can only speak from experience, and from experience when it was risk free I was involved in a lot of spurious claims, but when it became chargeable the spurious claims fell off a cliff, by and large leaving only those which were genuine.