Misplaced Pages

R (UNISON) v Lord Chancellor

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

R (UNISON) v Lord Chancellor
CourtUK Supreme Court
Full case name R (on the application of UNISON) v Lord Chancellor
Decided26 July 2017
Citation UKSC 51
Case history
Appealed fromDivisional Court of the Administrative Court EWHC 218 (Admin); Divisional Court of the Administrative Court EWHC 4198 (Admin); Court of Appeal of England and Wales EWCA Civ 935
Court membership
Judges sittingLord Neuberger, Lady Hale, Lord Mance, Lord Kerr, Lord Wilson, Lord Reed, Lord Hughes
Case opinions
  • Lord Reed: 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 as it has the effect of preventing access to justice.
  • Lady Hale, obiter: While discrimination under the Equality Act 2010 was not considered as the Order was unlawful ab initio, it was likely that it was not discriminatory in its application.
Concurrence
  • Lord Reed's opinion: Neuberger, Hale, Mance, Kerr, Wilson, Hughes
  • Lady Hale's opinion: Neuberger, Mance, Kerr, Wilson, Reed, Hughes
Keywords
Rule of law, Employment Appeal Tribunal Fees Order 2013, Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, judicial review

R (UNISON) v Lord Chancellor UKSC 51 is a UK labour law and UK constitutional law judgment of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. It held that fees for employment tribunals are unlawful because they impede access to justice, and defy the rule of law.

Facts

Unison claimed that fees for employment tribunals were ultra vires. The UK government introduced £1,200 fees to bring a typical case to an employment tribunal through the Employment Tribunals and the Employment Appeal Tribunal Fees Order 2013 (SI 2013/1893).

The Lord Chancellor purported to exercise this power under section 42(1) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. Unison claimed that the order was ultra vires.

This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. (August 2017)

Judgment

The Supreme Court unanimously held that employment tribunal fees were unlawful.

This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. (August 2017)

See also

Workplace protection cases
Lawrie-Blum v Land Baden-Wurttenberg (1986) C-66/85
Pfeiffer v Deutsches Rotes Kreuz (2005) C-397/01
Employment Rights Act 1996 s 230
Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher UKSC 41
Jivraj v Hashwani UKSC 40
Clyde & Co LLP v Bates van Winkelhof UKSC 32
Cassidy v Minister of Health 2 KB 343
Ready Mixed Concrete Ltd v SS for Pensions 2 QB 497
Market Invest Ltd v Minister for Social Security 2 QB 173
O’Kelly v Trusthouse Forte plc ICR 730
Nethermere (St Neots) Ltd v Gardiner ICR 612
Lee Ting Sang v Chung Chi-Keung UKPC 1
Hall v Lorimer EWCA Civ 25
Lane v Shire Roofing Co (Oxford) Ltd EWCA Civ 37
McMeechan v SS for Employment EWCA Civ 1166
Carmichael v National Power plc UKHL 47
Dacas v Brook Street Bureau (UK) Ltd EWCA Civ 217
Muscat v Cable & Wireless Plc EWCA Civ 220
James v Greenwich LBC EWCA Civ 35
Muschett v H M Prison Service EWCA Civ 25
see UK labour law

Notes

  1. "Employment tribunal fees regime unlawful".

References

  • E McGaughey, A Casebook on Labour Law (Hart 2019) ch 3, 149
Supreme Court of the United Kingdom
Current
justices
Leadership
Judges
Chief
Executive
Former
justices
President
Deputy
President
JudgesList of judges of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom
Judgments
Related
Justices shown in order of appointment


Flag of United KingdomJustice icon

This article relating to law in the United Kingdom, or its constituent jurisdictions, is a stub. You can help Misplaced Pages by expanding it.

Categories: