News & Events

Tribunal fees: challenge to tribunal fees fails at the Court of Appeal

Submitted By Firm: Addleshaw Goddard

Contact(s): Michael Leftley, Sarah Harrop


Helen Almond and Richard Branson

Date Published: 10/6/2015

Article Type:

Share This:

The Court of Appeal has rejected Unison's latest challenge to the tribunal fees system, primarily on the basis that there is still insufficient evidence that the fees have prevented particular individuals from bringing claims because they could not afford the fees. The Court did, however, acknowledge that the drop in the number of claims was "sufficiently startling to merit a very full and careful analysis" of the fees regime. Unison has sought permission to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court (R (Unison) v Lord Chancellor and another (2015) EWCA).


In July 2013, the Employment Tribunals and the Employment Appeal Tribunal Fees Order 2013 (Fees Order) came into force. The Fees Order introduced issue and hearing fees for claimants bringing claims in an Employment Tribunal (ET) and for appellants pursuing appeals in the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT). In summary, the Fees Order imposes the following fees:

  • "Type A" claims in the ET (e.g. claims for statutory redundancy payments, unlawful deductions from wages and breach of contract) attract an issue fee of £160 and hearing fee of £230.
  • "Type B" claims in the ET (e.g. claims for unfair dismissal, discrimination and whistleblowing) attract an issue fee of £250 and hearing fee of £950.
  • In the EAT, appeals attract an issue fee of £400 and a hearing fee of £1,200.

Full or partial fee remission (which takes into account disposable capital and gross monthly income) is available for individuals who qualify. In exceptional circumstances, the Lord Chancellor retains discretion to waive the fee, whether or not the remission criteria are met.

Since the Fees Order came into force, the Tribunal quarterly statistics have revealed a startling drop in the number of claims brought in the ET (see table below). For example, there was a 79% drop in the number of single claims made between October and December 2013 compared to the same period in 2012. This figure increased to an 81% drop in the number of single claims made between January and March 2014, as compared to the same period in 2013.

October – December

2012 v 2013

January – March

2013 v 2014

April – June

2013 v 2014

Single claims

79% drop

81% drop

81% drop

All claims

64% drop

59% drop

70% drop

Unison's judicial review challenges

Unison initially challenged the introduction of fees by way of judicial review in 2013 on four grounds, the main ground being that the fees regime denied claimants’ access to justice, thus breaching the "principle of effectiveness" under EU law. However, the challenge was dismissed by the High Court. One of the key reasons given for dismissing the challenge was that it had been brought too early, as there was not yet sufficient evidence to show the impact of the new fees regime. You can read our report on the High Court's decision here.

A second judicial review application was launched in 2014. However, this was also dismissed by the High Court. Whilst the Court suspected that there may be cases where a worker (who did not qualify for a fee remission) would be unable to find the money pay the fees, there was no evidence before the Court of any individual in this position. In the Court's view, the argument could only properly be tested by reference to actual cases which would enable the Court to review the income and expenditure of a particular individual. In any event, the Court held that quashing the fees system may be a disproportionate step. If evidence were to suggest that only a very small number of potential claimants were unable to enforce their employment rights (as opposed to merely being deterred), then the right solution might be for the Lord Chancellor to invoke his discretion to relieve such individuals from the obligation to pay fees in exceptional circumstances. You can read our report on this decision here.

Permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal was granted.


On appeal, Unison's grounds of challenge to the Fees Order were as follows:

  1. Breach of the principle of effectiveness: Unison argued that the regime introduced by the Fees Order 2013 breaches the EU "principle of effectiveness" by making it impossible in practice, or excessively difficult, for claimants to enforce the rights conferred upon them by EU law, thus denying them access to justice.
  2. Indirect discrimination: Unison argued that, by imposing a higher level of fees for Type B claims, the Fees Order is indirectly discriminatory against claimants with particular protected characteristics,
  3. Public sector equality duty: Unison argued that, by deciding to make the Fees Order, the Lord Chancellor had breached his duty under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 (i.e. to have due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination, advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations between those who share protected characteristics and those who do not).


The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

1. Breach of the principle of effectiveness

The Court of Appeal found that it had not been proved that the Fees Order breached the principle of effectiveness. In particular, the Court noted that:

  • Unison's approach in basing the case on the overall decline in claims cannot succeed by itself, but needs to be accompanied by evidence of the actual affordability of the fees in the financial circumstances of (typical) individuals. Only this type of evidence would enable the Court to reach a reliable conclusion that the fees payable under the Fees Order are unaffordable in some cases.
  • In principle, there was no reason why well-constructed cases of notional individuals could not be used to assist in proving that the fees would be realistically unaffordable for at least some typical claimants.
  • The fact that the Lord Chancellor retained discretion to grant remission for those claimants who did not meet the remission criteria meant that, on the face of it, the Fees Order did not inherently result in claimants being unable to bring proceedings.

Overall, the Court concluded that: "the decline in the number of claims in the Tribunals following the introduction of the Fees Order is sufficiently startling to merit a very full and careful analysis of its causes; and if there are good grounds for concluding that part of it is accounted for by claimants being realistically unable to afford to bring proceedings the level of fees and/or the remission criteria will need to be revisited."

2. Indirect discrimination

Unison submitted that the Fees Order was indirectly discriminatory on the basis that:

  • The proportion of Type B claimants who were women was higher than the proportion of Type A claimants (leading to a greater proportion of women than men having to pay the higher fee in order to issue proceedings).
  • The majority of discrimination claims are brought by women and, therefore, there is discrimination against those bringing discrimination claims (the statistics apparently showed that 58% of all discrimination claims are brought by women).
  • There was a difference between the proportion of Type B claimants who were women (said to be 54%) and the proportion of women in the workforce (said to be 47%).

In relation to (a), the Court held that the two-tier fees system was objectively justified on the basis that the higher fee in respect of discrimination claims reflected the greater demand that these claims placed on tribunal resources.

Regarding strand (b), the Court noted that the provision, criterion or practice of the requirement to pay a higher fee was applied to all Type B claimants, regardless of the type of claim brought. As Type B claims also include unfair dismissal (where no gender disproportion is alleged as regards the group as a whole), accordingly, the higher level of fee cannot be said to particularly disadvantage women.

Finally, in relation to (c), the Court noted that in Unison's second challenge, the Lord Chancellor had, in fact, produced more recent evidence from 2013 to show that the proportion of Type B claimants who were women was 45%, i.e. broadly equivalent to the proportion of women in the workforce. Therefore, the Court held that this argument was not borne out by the statistics put before it.

3. Public sector equality duty

Unison focussed their appeal on this ground on the Equality Impact Assessment dated 13 July 2012 (EIA). However, in considering the EIA, the Court noted that their role was to go no further than to identify whether the essential issues had been conscientiously considered and rational conclusions reached. In the Court's view, this (fairly low) threshold had been met and so this ground of appeal was also dismissed.


Unison has already applied for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court.

In the meantime, as noted by the Court in their conclusion on the "breach of effectiveness" principle, the Justice Committee is currently conducting a formal review on the impact of tribunal fees, the result of which is expected later in the year. This review is intended to: "consider how effective the introduction of fees has been in meeting the original financial and behavioural objectives while maintaining access to justice". The Court noted that just because Unison's arguments on the breach of effectiveness principle had not been made out before them, this should not prevent the Lord Chancellor from making his own assessment on that question, on the basis of all the evidence to which he will have access.

Separately, across the border, the Scottish Government has announced that it will abolish employment tribunal fees once it is "clear on how the transfer of powers and responsibilities" under the Smith Commission agreement will work. The announcement was made in September 2015 as part of the 'Programme for Government' agenda for 2015/2016.

R (Unison) v Lord Chancellor and another (2015) EWCA


Find a Member

View or print a complete ELA member list »

Client Successes

Altra Industrial Motion Inc.

Altra Industrial Motion Inc. has multiple locations in the U.S., as well as Central America, Europe, and Asia. The Employment Law Alliance has proved to be a great asset in assisting us in dealing with employment issues and matters in such diverse venues as Mexico, Australia, and Spain. We have obtained excellent results using the ELA network for matters ranging from a multi-state review of employment policies to assisting with individual employment issues in a variety of foreign jurisdictions.

In one instance, we were faced with an employment dispute with a former associate in Mexico that had the potential for substantial economic exposure. The matter had been pending for over a year, and we were not confident in the employment advice we had been receiving. I obtained a referral to the ELA counsel in Mexico, who was able to obtain a favorable resolution of the dispute in only a few days. Based on our experiences with the ELA, we would not hesitate to use its many resources for future employment law needs.

American University in Bulgaria

In my career I have been a practicing attorney, counsel to the Governor of Maine, and CEO of a major public utility. I have worked with many lawyers in many settings. When the American University in Bulgaria needed help with employment litigation in federal court in Syracuse, New York, we turned to Pierce Atwood, the ELA member we knew and trusted in Maine, for a referral. We were extremely pleased with the responsiveness and high quality of service we received from Bond Schoeneck & King, the ELA's firm in upstate New York. I would not hesitate to recommend the ELA to any employer.

David T. Flanagan
Member of Board of Trustees 

Arcata Associates

I really enjoyed the Conducting an Effective Internal Investigation in the United States webinar.  We are in the midst of a rather delicate employee relations issue in California right now and the discussion helped me tremendously.  It also reinforced things that you tend to forget if you don't do these investigations frequently.  So, many, many thanks to the Employment Law Alliance for putting that webinar together.  It was extremely beneficial.

Lynn Clayton
Vice President, Human Resources

Barrett Business Services, Inc.

I recently participated in the ELA-sponsored webinar on the Employee Free Choice Act.  I was most impressed with that presentation.  It was extremely helpful and very worthwhile.  I have also been utilizing the ELA's online Global Employer Handbook.  This compliance tool is absolutely terrific. 

I am familiar with several other products that purport to provide up-to- date employment law information and I believe that this resource is superior to other similar compliance manuals.  I am delighted that the ELA provides this free to its members' clients.

Boyd Coffee Company

Employment Law Alliance (ELA) has provided Boyd Coffee Company with a highly valued connection to resources, important information and learning. With complex operations and employees working in approximately 20 states, we are continually striving to keep abreast of specific state laws, many of which vary from state to state. We have participated in the ELA web seminars and have found the content very useful. We appreciate the ease, cost effectiveness and quality of the content and presenters offered by these web seminars.  The Global Employer Handbook has provided our company with a very helpful overview of legal issues in the various states in which we operate, and the network of attorneys has helped us manage issues that have arisen in states other than where our Roastery and corporate headquarters are located in Portland, Oregon.

Capgemini Outsourcing Services GmbH

As an international operating outsourcing and consulting supplier Capgemini has used firms of the Employment Law Alliance in Central Europe. We were always highly satisfied with the quality of employment law advice and the responsiveness. I can really recommend the ELA lawyers.

Hirschfeld Kraemer

Stephen HirschfeldAs an employment lawyer based in San Francisco, I work closely with high tech clients with operations around the globe. Last year, one of my clients needed to implement a workforce reduction in a dozen countries simultaneously. And they gave me 48 hours to accomplish this. I don't know how I could have pulled this off without the resources of the ELA. I don't know of any single law firm that could have made this happen. My client received all of the help they needed in a timely fashion and on a cost effective basis.

Stephen J. Hirschfeld

Hollywood Entertainment Corporation

As the Vice President for Litigation & Associate General Counsel for my company, I need to ensure that we have a team of top-notch employment lawyers in place in every jurisdiction where we do business. And I want to be confident that those lawyers know our business so they don't have to reinvent the wheel when a new legal matter arises. With more than 3400 stores and 35,000 employees operating in all 50 U.S. states and across Canada, we rely on the ELA to partner with us to help accomplish our objectives. I have been delighted with the consistent high quality of the work performed by ELA lawyers. I encourage other in-house counsel to use their services, as well.

Ingram Micro

Ingram Micro is the world's largest technology distributor, providing sales, marketing, and logistics services for the IT industry around the globe. With over 13,000 employees working throughout the U.S. and in 35 international countries, we need employment lawyers who we can count on to ensure global legal compliance. Our experience with many multi-state and multi-national law firms is that their employment law services are not always a high priority for them, and many do not have experts in many of their offices. The ELA has assembled an excellent team of highly skilled employment lawyers, wherever and whenever I need them, and they have proven to be an invaluable resource to our company.

Konami Gaming

Our company, Konami Gaming, Inc., is growing rapidly in a very diverse and highly regulated industry. We are aggressively entering new markets outside the domestic U.S., including Canada and South America. I have had the recent opportunity to utilize the services provided by the ELA. The legal advice was both responsive and professional. Most of all, the entire process was seamless since our Nevada attorney coordinated the services and legal advice requested. I look forward to working with the ELA in the future, as it serves as a great resource to the legal community.

Jennifer Martinez
Vice President, Human Resources

Nikkiso Cryo, Inc.

Until recently, I was unaware of the ELA's existence. We have subsidiaries and affiliates throughout the United States, as well as in Asia, the Middle East and Europe. When a recent legal issue arose in Texas, our long-time Nevada counsel, who is a member of the ELA, suggested that this matter be handled by his ELA colleague in Dallas. We are very pleased with the quality and timeliness of services provided by that firm, and we are excited to now have the ELA as an important asset to help us address employment law issues worldwide.

Palm, Inc.

The ELA network has been immensely important to our company in helping us address an array of human resources challenges around the world. I strongly encourage H.R. executives who have employees located in many different jurisdictions to utilize the ELA's unparalleled expertise and geographic coverage.

Stacy Murphy
Former Senior Director of Human Resources

Rich Products

As the General Counsel for a company with 6,500 employees operating across the U.S. and in eight countries, it is critical that I have top quality lawyers on the ground where we do business. The ELA is an indispensable resource. It has taken the guesswork out of finding the best employment counsel wherever we have a problem.

Jill K. Bond
Senior Vice President/General Counsel, Shared Services and Benefits

Ricoh Americas Corporation

We have direct sales and service offices all over the U.S., but have not necessarily had the need in the past for assistance with legal work in every state where we have a business presence. From time to time, we suddenly find ourselves facing a legal issue in a state where we have no outside counsel relationship. It has been a real benefit to know that the ELA has assembled such an impressive team of experts throughout the U.S. and overseas.

A few years ago, we faced a very tough discrimination lawsuit in Mississippi. We had never had to retain a lawyer there before. I was absolutely delighted with the Mississippi ELA firm. We received an excellent result. They will no doubt handle all of our employment law matters in Mississippi in the future. I have also obtained the assistance of several other ELA firms around the U.S. and have received the same outstanding service. The ELA is a tremendous resource for our company.

Roberts-Gordon LLC

Our affiliated companies have used the Employment Law Alliance in connection with numerous acquisitions, and have always been extremely pleased with our ability to obtain the highest quality legal advice on due diligence issues from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. We have found the Employment Law Alliance firms to be not only first rate with respect to their legal advice but also responsive and timely in assisting us with federal and state law issues critical to our due diligence efforts. We consider the Employment Law Alliance to be an important part of our team.

Rockwell Collins, Inc.

We have partnered with many ELA firms on the development and execution of case management strategies with very positive results. We have been very pleased with the legal advice and counsel provided by the law firms we have utilized who are affiliated with the Employment Law Alliance. The ELA firms we have worked with are customer focused, responsive, and thorough in their approach to handling labor and employment law matters.

Elizabeth Daly
Assistant General Counsel


Sanmina-SCI has facilities strategically located in key regions throughout the world. Our customers expect that we will provide them with the highest quality and most sophisticated services in the marketplace. We have that same expectation for the lawyers with whom we do business. With operations in 17 countries, we need to be certain that we have a team of lawyers working together to address our employment law needs worldwide. The ELA has delivered exactly what it promised-- seamless and consistent high quality services delivered in each locale around the globe. It has quickly become a key asset for our human resources department.


We own, manage, and franchise hotels throughout the U.S. and in more than 90 countries. With more than 145,000 employees worldwide, ensuring that we comply with the complex web of local labor and employment laws in every one of these jurisdictions is a daunting task. The Employment Law Alliance has served as an important resource for us and we have benefited greatly from its expertise and long reach. When a legal dispute or issue has arisen in some far-flung place, Employment Law Alliance lawyers have always provided responsive, practical, and cost-effective assistance.

Wilmington Trust Corporation

Wilmington Trust has used the ELA to locate firms in California, Washington State, Georgia, and Europe. Our experience with the ELA lawyers with whom we have worked has always been one of complete satisfaction and prompt, practical advice.

Michael A. DiGregorio
General Counsel