Union to mount new challenge to employment tribunal fees
Workers who have had to pay to take their cases to an employment tribunal could be refunded the money if an appeal against fees regime is successful.
The UNISON union announced on 1 April that it had been granted permission by the Court of Appeal to proceed with appeals against High Court decisions refusing its two judicial review applications challenging the lawfulness of the fees. The appeals will be heard together in June.
The Lord Chancellor agreed in the first judicial review claim that he would reimburse all employment tribunal fees paid, if they were found to be unlawful.
UNISON general secretary Dave Prentis said: “Every worker who has been forced to pay these punitive fees may get their money back if UNISON’s case is successful.
“We are pleased that this issue is being taken seriously. We hope the court will recognise that the government’s fees regime is having a significant impact on the ability of workers to access justice, particularly low-paid women.”
The union said that the latest figures revealed the number of employment tribunal cases was continuing to fall. Between October and December 2014, claims dropped by a further 12 per cent compared with the same quarter in 2013, when the fee regime, introduced in July 2013, was already in place.
Barristers call for review of employment tribunal fees
Experts in employment law have called for an urgent review of fees to take cases to employment tribunals.
The Employment Law Bar Association, which represents barristers specialising in employment law cases for both employers and employees, published an open letter with more than 400 signatories sent to ministers including Justice Secretary Chris Grayling and Employment Relations Minister Jo Swinson on 16 March.
It said that since fees were introduced for pursuing an employment tribunal claim in July 2013, there had been “a drastic reduction” in the number of cases, adding: “The government’s own statistics…show that the average number of claims per quarter in 2012-2013 (before the introduction of fees) was 48,000; in the last quarter of 2014, there were 18,943, that is 60 per cent fewer claims.
“In our view the present employment tribunal fees are a significant barrier to access to justice, and are preventing employees from being able to complain about contraventions of their employment rights.
“We do not think that the current level of fees can be justified by the suggestion that prior to July 2013 a significant percentage of employment tribunal claims were vexatious claims. Indeed, the statistics kept by the Ministry of Justice show that of the claims that proceeded to a hearing in 2012-3, more claims were successful than unsuccessful.”
The letter said that the government had announced in April last year that it intended to review the introduction of the fees, and the level at which they had been set, but no date had been set.
It called for the review to take place as a matter of urgency and urged all political parties, ahead of the general election on 7 May, to state their commitment to such a review.
Family financial orders set for reform
The body that reviews the law and recommends reform is to examine the enforcement of court orders for financial or property arrangements when couples divorce or a civil partnership is dissolved.
The Law Commission launched a four-month consultation on family financial orders for the payment of money or transfer of property in England and Wales on 11 March.
The commission said that the project was not about how much people should have to pay but about ensuring that payment was made once a court order is in place.
It added that it was seeking views on how reform could make the law more effective, “by which we mean more likely to produce compliance with a family financial order in a way that is fair to both parties”.
The consultation, which will run until 11 July, will look at issues including:
- the importance of ensuring that someone complies with a family financial order. The commission said that non-payment could cause “real hardship” for those affected
- the importance of distinguishing people who cannot pay from those who can but refuse to do so and the possibility of bringing pressure to bear on those who are able to pay but choose not to comply with a court order.
The consultation documents can be found here.
Unlimited fines introduced in magistrates courts
The £5,000 cap on the maximum fine that magistrates can impose has been lifted.
With effect from 12 March, magistrates can issue higher penalties for people committing more serious offences.
The move is designed to give magistrates more flexibility when deciding on punishments. They will still be able to jail offenders for up to six months or to refer the most serious cases to Crown Court if they think a longer sentence is necessary.
The maximum fines previously available to magistrates depended on the seriousness of the offence and were set at five levels, of £200, £500, £1,000, £2,500 and £5,000. The 12 March change removed the upper limit on all fines.
Justice Minister Mike Penning said: “It is important that magistrates, who sentence the majority of offenders who come through our courts, have the power to hand down the appropriate punishment with the severity they see fit.
“Criminals should be in no doubt that if they break the law they will face consequences and where a fine is the most appropriate sentence this could run into several thousands.”
When imposing any fines, magistrates will still take into account the financial means of the offender, in line with the sentencing guidelines.
According to the Sentencing Council, in 2013 fines were used to punish 68 per cent of all offenders (792,942 people).
Workers and bosses urged to talk about shared parental leave
The Department for Business, Innovation & Skills is stepping up its awareness campaign around shared parental leave.
It said on 18 February – eight weeks before parents with babies due on or after 5 April 2015 can start sharing up to 50 weeks of parental leave and 37 weeks of pay – they needed to have an “all-important conversation” with their employers.
A total of 285,000 working couples a year are expected to be eligible for shared parental leave, with parents required to give employers eight weeks’ notice of the pattern of leave they intend to take.
Employment Relations Minister Jo Swinson said: “Shared parental leave will kickstart a change where fathers feel empowered to take time off to look after their kids and not feel constrained by outdated stereotypes.
“We recognise that this isn’t going to be easy for those at the forefront of the change but we also know that for many dads the nerves they feel about having a conversation with their boss around leave will be worth it in the end.
“We also know that many employers are incredibly supportive and keen to offer mums and dads more flexibility. Employers will see the benefit in terms of staff loyalty and providing women the option to return to work earlier.”
Sir Brendan Barber, the chair of employment relations organisation Acas, added: “Businesses and employees should familiarise themselves with these new rights now. Our advice to eligible employees and their employers is to start having early discussions about the different options available so that preparing and planning the leave is as straightforward as possible.”
Court fees hike set for legal challenge
The body that represents solicitors in England and Wales has begun legal action over the government’s decision to increase some court fees by more than 600 per cent.
The Law Society has issued a pre-action protocol letter, the first stage in seeking a judicial review challenging a decision to increase the fee to issue proceedings for the recovery of money to five per cent of the value of the claim for all claims over £10,000. The court fees affect cases involving debts owed to small businesses as well as personal injury and clinical negligence claims.
Under the new regime, announced last month, the fee to issue proceedings to recover £50,000 would go up from £815 to £2,500 and for £150,000 it would soar from £1,115 to £7,500. The maximum fee to issue proceedings will be set at £10,000, the fee payable to issue a claim for £200,000.
Data gathered from nearly 200 solicitors suggested that the total value of cases brought by individuals would fall by around one-third (35 per cent) under higher court fees and for small and medium-sized companies would almost halve (a 49 per cent decrease).
Law Society president Andrew Caplen said: “State provision for people to redress wrongs through the courts is the hallmark of a civilised society. The government’s policy on ‘enhanced court fees’ amounts to a flat tax on those seeking justice.
“The government’s hikes – due to come in from April – will price the public out of the courts and leave small businesses saddled with debts they are due but unable to afford to recover.”
The grounds on which the Law Society is challenging include the government not having the power to raise fees for the purposes it stated in its consultation on the proposal – to make departmental savings.
The Law Society also says that consultees were not told how much money needed to be raised from enhanced fees or why, a breach of the government’s own consultation principles, and that the government is proceeding without evidence to justify the increases.
Other professional organisations signing the letter include the Bar Council, the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives, the Forum of Insurance Lawyers, the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, the Motor Accident Solicitors Society, the Chancery Bar Association, Action Against Medical Accidents and the Commercial Bar Association.
Children to be given greater say in family courts
Children are to have a greater say in family court cases, including disputes about child arrangements after divorce or care proceedings, Justice Minister Simon Hughes has announced.
Speaking on 19 February to the 24 young people making up the Family Justice Young People’s Board (FJYPB) – which promotes the voices of children and young people in the family justice system – Mr Hughes set out changes designed to make it easier for children and young people to communicate their views in court.
Options include communicating through meetings, letters or pictures or via a third person, in addition to a Children and Families Court Advisory and Support Service (Cafcass) officer or social worker.
Mr Hughes said: “For too long, children and young people have struggled to have their voices heard during the family court process. Although they are often at the centre of proceedings, the views of children and how they feel are often not heard, with other people making vital decisions for them.
“I’ve been really impressed with the Family Justice Young People’s Board and the arguments which its members put forward. This is why I have taken steps to make sure that children and young people from the age of ten will be able to express their views in cases which affect them.
“Young people are some of the most vulnerable in society, and it is vitally important that we make sure they are at the heart of the family justice system.”
Last year there were 90,000 children involved in new cases in the family courts. The government’s plans are designed to give all young people from the age of ten a greater opportunity to have their voice heard.
FJYPB member Bethany Shepherd, aged 19, who has been through the family justice system, said: “It is vital to hear a child’s opinion about their case when a decision is made that could ultimately affect them for the rest of their lives.
“I had to wait four years before my voice was heard and I was considered to be too young to know my own mind or listened to individually and simply just lumped together with my younger sister. I spent much of my childhood fighting just to have my voice heard.”
Employment tribunal postponements set to be curbed
The government is seeking views on proposed legislation that would restrict adjournments in employment tribunal hearings.
The consultation, which was launched on 16 January and will close on 12 March, sets out a proposal that if one party involved in the case has already been granted two adjournments, for either a preliminary or final hearing, a third would be refused.
It also proposes that requests for adjournments be refused if made less than seven days before the hearing date. However, the restrictions would not apply in:
- exceptional circumstances
- where both parties agreed to the adjournment and the tribunal believed it would help them to reach a settlement
- the adjournment has been requested for a reason outside the person’s control, for example late disclosure of documents by the other side.
In these circumstances, an adjournment could be granted but the tribunal would consider whether a costs order should be made.
Younger drivers more likely to drink and drive
People under the age of 25 are more likely than older motorists to drive under the influence, new figures from the Association of Chief Police Officers have shown.
National statistics for the December 2014 anti-drink and drug driving campaign showed that 133,996 breath tests were carried out, with 5,885 drivers, or 4.4 per cent, failing.
However, among under-25s tested, there was a failure rate of 6.3 per cent. Among over-25s, the failure rate was 3.9 per cent.
Chief Constable Suzette Davenport, the UK’s national lead for roads policing, said on 20 January: “Younger drivers…are, unsurprisingly, more likely to take risks, but our message is very simple and very clear – you are breaking the law, you are risking your life and the lives of those around you and the consequences of doing so will plague you for the rest of your life.
“Do not drive under the influence – it is not worth the risk and you will be caught. That message is not just for younger drivers, though – it is for all those who get behind the wheel.”
Kevin Clinton, head of road safety at the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, said the number of young people driving under the influence was “worrying”.
Meanwhile, a new offence of driving with certain controlled drugs, including some prescription drugs, above specified limits will come into force on 2 March 2015.
The drugs include eight illegal substances and eight medicines, the limits for most of which are above the normal dose.
The Department for Transport said that people able to drive safely would have a medical defence if they took a medicine included in the new offence and were above the specified limit but followed the advice of either a healthcare professional or printed in a leaflet accompanying their medication.
Medicinal drugs affected include Clonazepam, Diazepam, Flunitrazepam, Lorazepam, Oxazepam and Temazepam. The department said it estimated that around 19 million prescriptions a year were issued for those included in the new offence.
Court fee changes under fire
The government has decided not to increase fees for divorce applications but is going ahead with higher charges for civil court proceedings to recover money owed.
The Ministry of Justice, which published its response to a consultation on proposed reforms to court fees on 16 January, had proposed increasing the divorce application fee from £410 to £750. It said: “Respondents to the consultation were particularly concerned about raising the fee for a divorce. We have listened to those concerns and we have decided not to pursue this measure for the time being.”
However, it will increase the fee issue to proceedings for the recovery of money to five per cent of the value of the claim for all claims over £10,000, adding: “The fees for claims of less than £10,000, which represent over 90 per cent of all money claims, are unaffected by these proposals and will remain at their current levels.”
The maximum fee to issue proceedings will be £10,000, the fee payable to issue a claim for £200,000.
The consultation had also put forward proposals for higher fees in commercial proceedings but the government has decided against implementing these.
The Civil Justice Council, an advisory body that oversees and is responsible for modernisation of the civil justice system, said that it was “extremely concerned” by a fee based on five per cent of the value of a claim.
It warned that this could effectively price many people out of the courts, adding that it could have a “disproportionately adverse effect on some groups e.g. small and medium enterprises, low income individuals and thereby undermining equality before the law.”
The move was also criticised by the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, which said that the fee for a claim of £200,000 for a serious injury would increase by 560 per cent.
Association president John Spencer said: “This move is bound to discourage people from making valid claims – people who have every right to make them.
“This new regime will dictate that some seriously injured people will be expected to pay £10,000 up front to bring their cases to court, and many simply won’t be able to afford it.”
