Should a claimant be burdened with Tribunal fees even if they are successful?
26th March, 2014
Since the introduction of fees in the Employment Tribunals and the Employment Appeal Tribunal (“EAT”), there has been plenty of debate about whether the payment of fees is fair on claimants.
The recent case of Portnykh v Nomura UKEAT/0448/13/LA has now highlighted how the Tribunal are likely to treat the payment of fees in a case where the claimant is successful.
In this EAT case, the unsuccessful respondent was ordered to pay £1,600 of fees incurred by the claimant.
Rule 34A(2)(a) of the Employment Tribunal (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 gives the EAT discretion to consider whether a respondent should pay the claimant’s fees if their appeal has been successful, in full or in part.
Although this was a highly arguable matter and in fact the claimant had not been fully co-operative throughout proceedings, the appeal succeeded. On this basis, the respondent was ordered to pay the claimant’s fees. However, the order was subject to the outcome of the claimant’s fee remission application which was still outstanding.
This case highlights the importance of seeking expert employment law advice prior to submitting or responding to a claim. Employment Tribunals and the new Employment Tribunal fees follow complex rules of procedure and require expert knowledge to ensure that you fully co-operate with your obligations. Aaron & Partners specialist employment law team can provide advice and representation throughout the Tribunal process.
For further information and advice in relation to Employment Tribunal fees, please contact Helen Watson on 01244 405565 or send an email to [email protected].
You might also be interested in...
15th May, 2018
Experienced HR leader joins Aaron & Partners LLP Law firm with offices in Chester and Shrewsbury appoints Kate Robertson to drive HR strategy for more than 120 staff and to support the company’s growth Chester law firm Aaron & Partners LLP has strengthened its senior leadership team with the appointment of an experienced human resources manager. Kate Robertson... Read More »
24th April, 2018
Jan Chillery, Insolvency Partner at Aaron & Partners LLP, shares her experience and the reasons why we should be cautious before paying so-called “bailiffs” over the phone or online without vetting them first. My neighbour has told me that recently he had a CCJ (County Court Judgment) against him. A day or so later, he received a phone call... Read More »
11th April, 2018
Jan Chillery, Insolvency Partner comments on the recent case of Mr A M Coletta v Bath Hill Court – Bournemouth Property Management Ltd UKEAT 0200 17 RN To read the Transcript of Proceedings in full please click here “This case highlights an important aspect of the Statute of Limitations which affects a wider field than employment claims. An... Read More »