Union loses legal bid to crush 'punitive' employment tribunal fees

A legal attempt to overturn the fees charged to claimants taking their employer to tribunal has been rejected by the High Court.

Unison, the union, has been fighting to have the fees, which range from £160 to £250 to issue a claim, and £230 to £950 for a tribunal hearing, abolished.

Since the charges were introduced last year, the number of employment tribunal claims has plunged. Prior to the introduction of the charge, about 48,000 new claims were made each quarter but just 13,612 were lodged in the three months to September.

Unison claimed the fees are “punitive” and “priced thousands of workers out of justice”.

However, employers and business groups have welcomed them as a way of protecting companies from frivolous claims.

The Institute of Directors has previously called them a “sensible way to weed out weak or vexatious claims”, noting that before the refundable charges were introduced, fewer than one in 10 claims against its members were won by the claimant.

Although the High Court turned down Unison’s application for a judicial review over the Government’s decision to introduce the fees, it was granted permission to appeal in the Court of Appeal.

Dave Prentis, the union’s general secretary, said: “The High Court’s decision is disappointing but we will fight on and do everything possible to ensure that these punitive fees introduced by the government are abolished.

“Today’s ruling is a real missed opportunity to ensure that all workers can afford to bring an employment tribunal claim.”

Shailesh Vara, Justice Minister, said: "I am pleased that the court has dismissed this case on all grounds. Small businesses can be hamstrung by unfounded employment tribunal claims and taxpayers should not have to pick up the £74m bill for running the service.

"We've made sure fee waivers are available for those who can't afford to pay, as well as diverting people away from potentially acrimonious hearings, where possible, through a new early conciliation scheme."

Despite the ruling, lawyers were unsure whether fees are likely to remain in place or in their current form.

Geoffrey Mead, partner at law firm Eversheds, said: “The longer term future of the fees regime is not secure. The government has said it will review the way fees are operating, and some employer groups have indicated that they feel the current level of fees is too high. Furthermore, a change in government at the election next year could result in a significant reduction in fee levels: both the Labour party and Liberal Democrats have indicated that they would reduce fees.”

Paul Callaghan, head of employment law at Taylor Wessing, said: “The number of tribunal claims received fell nearly 80pc after the introduction of fees in July 2013, and has now stabilised at around 60pc of those in the same period last year. This massive fall is likely to be sustained, at least until after the election, when there is likely to be a review – regardless of which party is in government.”