Introduction In 2013 the Parliament enacted the Fees Order 2013 which was implemented by the Lord Chancellor Despite the fact that the order was justified under s 42 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 the Lord Chancellor implemented the Order under ultra vires claiming that the order would prescribe fees payable in respect of anything dealt with by the first tier and upper Tribunals or by an added tribunal It was considered a defiance of the rule of law it set a restriction on access to justice through indirect discrimination under the 2010 Equality Act This was therefore challenged and brought to court by UNISON the appellant along with the Human Rights Commision After several calls for judicial review the case was brought before the Supreme Court where they were able to provide substantial evidence for the Order s restrictions of public justice The order was criticized due to its breach of the Magna Carta of 1215 which states We will sell to no man we will not deny or differ to any man either justice or right Lord Reed shared a similar opinion stating The Employment Appeal Tribunal Fees Order 2013 which imposed fees on appeals from employment tribunals is unlawful ab initio under English and European Union law it has the effect of preventing access to justice However Lady Hale interpreted Reed s opinion stating that not all discrimination is unlawful and was consequently not considered direct discrimination in accordance with the Equality Act of 2010 and was therefore rendered indirect discrimination under s 19 breaching EU Law
The final judgement of the case was given on the 26th of July and held that is was unlawful with indirect discrimination to people with low incomes and also towards women due to their 54 majority in Type B claims This judgement was decided by a 6 1 vote by the judges Reasoning of the Court On June 28th 2013 the appellant issued a claim for judicial review with the aim of having the order quashed on the grounds of breaching EU Law The Divisional courts dismissed the claim stating that the proceedings were of a premature nature and that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the grounds of the claim Due to the Fees Order arising earlier in the year there were only a select few cases which restricted citizen s rights to justice The appellant was however granted permission to appeal only on the grounds of effectiveness Therefore in 2014 the appellant then requested a second claim for a judicial review introducing a second ground for desire to have it quashed This was therefore in the name of effectiveness and discrimination This then was brought before the Divisional court dismissed the claim for a second time in 2014 The dismissal was justified under the terms that the Order did not violate the terms of effectiveness as Fees were deemed of a reasonable standard price and affordable even to those who earn a minimum wage
However the Court of Appeal granted the permission to appeal on the terms of both grounds of discrimination and effectiveness and was heard in the Court of Appeal in 2015 The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as Underhill claimed that the imposition of a fee does not infringe any citizen s human rights to an Employment Tribunal He justified the costs as a sensible use of money Finally rejecting the grounds of discrimination and the arguments based on the Public Sector Equality Duty However the final ratification under the Supreme Court has a much more distinct conclusion in comparison with the previous proceedings Both Lord Reed and Lady Hale provided final judgment under the claims of discrimination It was also concluded that not only was the access to justice a right under EU Law but was also a right which was embedded into the UK s unwritten constitution Lord Reeds opinion as stated earlier believed that the order should abolished due to it s breach of EU law as it prevented low income citizens from their fundamental right of access to justice The ratification of the earlier appeals required more evidence to assist a discrimination charge However due to the 66 70 drop in claims it was clear that the Employment Tribunals offered little justice to those who suffered from both Type A and Type B claims Lady Hale s judgement dismissed the interpreted discrimination claims saying that not all discrimination is unlawful and hence does not fall under discrimination under the Equality Act 2010 Under section 19 2 a must apply to everyone and hence to all Type B claims Facts The implementation of the Fees Order was formed under s 42 1 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act of 2007 through ultra vires
The enactment was said to decrease the amount of Employment claims and hence diminish the Governmental annual costs for such court hearings as there was a desire for a 23 reduction in the government s spending review The Fees Order separated claims labelling them as Type A and Type B claims Type A would be classified as claims which would be resolved without hassle An Example of such a claim is unpaid wages Type B claims are typically more expensive including disputes dealing with unfair dismissals and equal pay The Fees Order implemented two distinct stages of payment an issue fee and a hearing fee These payments were designed to reduce the amount of cases that go to court and hence had a primary purpose of encouraging a settlement between the two parties involved The considerable drop in Employment claims after the implementation however suggested that this was due to the new cost for individual claims This was mainly due to the fact that people with low income could not afford bring their claims to court
CALCULATE YOUR ORDER
Save on your first order!