Employment Tribunal Fees: The evidential ‘hot potato’ to be heard by Court of Appeal

18 December 2014 by

unison-logo-1Unison (No.2), R (on the application of) v The Lord Chancellor – read judgment [2014] EWHC 4198 (Admin)

The Divisional Court (Lord Justice Elias and Mr Justice Foskett) has dismissed Unison’s second-generation attempt to challenge by judicial review the legality of the Employment Tribunal fees system but gave permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal. The “striking” reduction in claims (79 per cent fewer) presented to Employment Tribunals, Lord Justice Elias accepted, was evidence that the system was “extremely onerous” for people in the position of the hypothetical claimants construed by Unison in their legal argument but “not so burdensome as to render the right illusory” (paragraph 53).

Noting the potential infringement of Article 6 rights, Lord Justice Elias was not convinced that the evidence available to the Court surmounted the high threshold set by the European Union case law on effectiveness (paragraphs 23-51; & 60-64); particularly where hypothetical rather than real examples deprived the Lord Chancellor of an opportunity to redress any alleged deficiencies in the scheme (see paragraphs 62-64).

Litigation background in summary

The original judicial review application was lodged in the summer (see my previous post) and was dismissed by the High Court (read the judgment here). However, permission was granted to appeal that decision to the Court of Appeal where the appeal has been stayed pending Unison’s renewed application for judicial review on the basis of fresh evidence. Unison has indicated that permission has been granted in respect of the second application for judicial review to appeal to the Court appeal where the intention is to invite the Court of Appeal to hear the appeals concurrent: see Unison’s statement here.

Points of interest to note in the decision

1. Effectiveness

The principle of effectiveness is quite simple: rights guaranteed to European citizens must be more than theoretical or illusory in that they must be guaranteed by enabling rights of citizen to access to appropriate bodies (Courts and Tribunals) in order to secure or enforce those rights (paragraph 23).

2. Case Law on effectiveness principle

In a comprehensive review of the law relating to the effectiveness principle (paragraphs 23-51), Lord Justice Elias distilled two principles from the case law (see paragraphs 43-44) –

(i) there should not be unnecessary and disproportionate limitations placed on access to the Court;

(ii) even where proportionate a limitation should not be such as to make it virtually impossible or excessively difficult to access the court.

3. The test applicable to the lawfulness of the fee system

The second principle was in issue in the current case (paragraph 44):

The argument in this case is that there is no effective right of access. The imposition of a fee in order to help pay for the service is plainly in principle a legitimate aim designed to ensure that the users of the service make a contribution towards its costs. The only issue in my judgment is whether it does in practice make access impossible or exceptionally difficult. The cases on disproportionate limitation do not in my view bear on that test.

4. The outcome: Applying the high standard to the facts: Lord Justice Elias stated that (at paragraph 60):

The figures demonstrate incontrovertibly that the fees have a marked effect on the willingness of workers to bring a claim but they do not prove that any of them are unable, as opposed to unwilling, to do so.(emphasis added)

5. Access to Justice

For those interested in human rights law, the principle of effectiveness will sound strikingly similar to the principles underpinning Article 6 guarantees of access to justice. In fact, the Divisional Court noted that while not expressly framed as an Article 6 case, it might have been (see paragraph 24) and appears to have applied Article 6 considerations to the question of effectiveness: see paragraph 43.

6. Fee remission

Within the Employment Tribunal fee system is only available to those with less than £3,000 in assets including the assets of their spouse or partner after allowing for a 10 per cent cost of sale (paragraphs 19-20).

7. The Lord Chancellor’s discretion

The Court decided that it was significant that no actual individual’s case was evidenced by the claimant and neither was there any evidence that the discretion reserved to the Lord Chancellor to waive the fees had been called upon (see paragraphs 22 & 63). This is an aspect of the case that may be revisited particularly in light of the recent decision in relation to a similar discretion in relation to civil legal aid: see the post here.

8. Discriminatory Effect

Unison advanced an argument that fees represented an indirect discriminatory barrier to the Employment Tribunal claims of women in the workforce. Indirect discrimination occurs when an apparently neutral provision criterion or practice has a disproportionate impact on a protected group (section 19 of the Equality Act 2010). Lord Justice Elias doubted that the claimant had established a prima facie case on the evidence available and concluded that in any event such minimal disparate disadvantage could be justified: see paragraph 81.

Justification requires the Court to test whether the provision criterion or practice – while discriminatory in effect – can be justified as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate end. Lord Justice Elias noted that the key aim of the Lord Chancellor was saving cost (not sufficient justification on its own) but went on to conclude that this aim was allied to the aim of encouraging settlement of claims (paragraphs 82-90); an objective the Lord Chancellor was also pursuing through compulsory early conciliation (paragraph 83).

Comment and Analysis

1. Cost alone approach:

Those familiar with the justification of discrimination will also be familiar with the debate surrounding a cost alone as opposed to a ‘cost-plus’ approach, the development of which is controversial. However, it must be doubted that there is a meaningful distinction between fees on the one hand – which reduce cost to both government, in running the Employment Tribunal system, and employers in defending claims – and the requirement on claimants to enter early conciliation on the other, as both requirements unquestionably serve the same identical dual aims. Further, and with due respect to the Court, they are requirements whose aims are grounded in cost alone.

2. Statistical Evidence

While there is some force in the argument that real rather than hypothetical cases ought to test the restriction on access to the court – and also perhaps the discriminatory effect (although discrimination law is accustomed to hypothetical comparison) – the statistical analysis is startling. Even the Lord Chancellor accepted that fees were causative of a 60 per cent reduction in case being brought in the Employment Tribunal (see paragraph 57) and that cannot be explained by weak cases or the whimsical choices of putative claimants. Practitioners will report anecdotally that fees (like deposit orders, and costs warning before the introduction of fees) do not deter determined but misguided claimants with inherently weak claims. The natural inference is that while fees might deter some weak claims, they are also deterring those with otherwise legitimate grievances from seeking redress in the Employment Tribunals. It is arguable that this issue will only ever be evidenced adequately either anecdotally or statistically (the latter must be preferable). Faced with individual cases, the Lord Chancellor would no doubt argue they are atypical.

Lauren Godfrey is a barrister at Crown Office Row Brighton

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Related posts:



  1. rebeccafrank says:

    People need to abide by the juridiction which is so clear. Thanks for sharing!!

  2. […] Unison’s attempt to challenge the legality of the Coalition’s new Employment Tribunal fees system has been dismissed by the Divisional Court, according to the UK Human Rights Blog. […]

  3. daveyone1 says:

    Reblogged this on World4Justice : NOW! Lobby Forum..

  4. Gary Holford says:

    When we see exploitation of workers by agencies: It is necessary to consider the fees in depth as the UK, through sheer greed, is making enemies for itself.
    It is alleged that ‘Staffline’ is asking people, especially foreigners, to attend work then continually sending them home without any form of remuneration for their efforts to attend said shift- i.e. they will have had to eat, sleep and travel to make themselves available. I believe this is already illegal and the law cannot be enforced simply because the victim cannot afford legal expenses.

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals Anne Sacoolas anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board care homes Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy diplomatic relations disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Harry Dunn Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy procurement Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions prostituton Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism The Round Up tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Weekly Round-up Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: