Outcome at a glance
UNISON won its appeal. The employment tribunal fees order was unlawful because it prevented access to justice and had to be quashed.
Allegations & issues
UNISON challenged the lawfulness of the 2013 fees order, including its impact on access to justice and discrimination.
Key rulings & findings
The fees unlawfully obstructed access under domestic and EU law. Higher fees for certain claims also indirectly discriminated against women without sufficient justification.
Admissions
The decision records judicial findings, not an admission by the Lord Chancellor.
Disposition
Appeal unanimously allowed on 26 July 2017; the fees order was unlawful from the outset.
Penalties, damages & redress
The appeal was a challenge to the fees regime, not a claim for a single damages award.
Restrictions & obligations
The challenged fees order could not lawfully continue in effect.
Affordability in practice
The 2013 order introduced fees for bringing and hearing employment claims. For an individual, the combined fees were £390 for type A claims and £1,200 for type B claims, including discrimination and unfair-dismissal claims. UNISON challenged the effect of that regime on access to justice. [1; 2, Background]
The Court examined the sharp fall in claims and the practical effect on household budgets and low-value disputes. Access was not meaningful merely because a claimant could theoretically find the money by sacrificing reasonable living standards. A fee could also make pursuit of a modest claim economically irrational. [1; 2, Reasons]
Why the order was quashed
The Court held that access to courts underpins enforcement of the rights Parliament creates. The fee regime unlawfully interfered with that access. Its objectives, including shifting costs to users, did not establish that the interference was justified. [1; 2]
The higher fees for type B claims also placed women at a particular disadvantage and were not shown to be a proportionate means of achieving the stated aims. The outcome invalidated the fee order; it did not determine the merits of individual employment disputes or award each potential claimant damages. [1; 2, Reasons]
THE UNDERLYING RECORD
Primary sources
Read the full documents for their precise wording and context. Regulator summaries are identified separately from court records.
Court record · supremecourt.uk01 · Supreme Court · Case record and judgment ↗Court record · supremecourt.uk02 · Supreme Court · Press summary, 26 July 2017 ↗