Unison, R (On the Application Of) v The Lord Chancellor

Unison, R (On the Application Of) v The Lord Chancellor

The Court held that Unison had not proved that the Fees Order made it in practice impossible or excessively difficult for claimants to access the Employment Tribunal or EAT. The evidence did not establish that fees were realistically unaffordable for a significant number of claimants, and the remission scheme, including provision for exceptional circumstances, was sufficient to prevent inherent unlawfulness. The indirect discrimination claim failed as no disparate impact was established on the evidence, and any differential treatment was justified. The Lord Chancellor had complied with the Public Sector Equality Duty by conducting equality impact assessments and ongoing monitoring. The...

Parties
Claimant/appellant: The Queen (on the application of Unison); Defendant/respondent: The Lord Chancellor; Intervener: Equality and Human Rights Commission
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 August 2015
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Access to Justice, Court Fees, Indirect Discrimination, Public Sector Equality Duty, Judicial Review, Effectiveness Principle, Remission of Fees
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Labour Law Equality Law EU Law Access to Justice Court Fees Indirect Discrimination +4 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 19
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Queen (on the application of Unison)

Claimant/appellant

The Lord Chancellor

Defendant/respondent

Equality and Human Rights Commission

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Employment Tribunal and Employment Appeal Tribunal Fees Order 2013 unlawfully restricts access to justice under EU and domestic law.
  2. 2 Whether the Fees Order is indirectly discriminatory against protected groups, particularly women, under EU law and the Equality Act 2010.
  3. 3 Whether the Lord Chancellor complied with the Public Sector Equality Duty under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that Unison had not proved that the Fees Order made it in practice impossible or excessively difficult for claimants to access the Employment Tribunal or EAT. The evidence did not establish that fees were realistically unaffordable for a significant number of claimants, and the remission scheme, including provision for exceptional circumstances, was sufficient to prevent inherent unlawfulness. The indirect discrimination claim failed as no disparate impact was established on the evidence, and any differential treatment was justified. The Lord Chancellor had complied with the Public Sector Equality Duty by conducting equality impact assessments and ongoing monitoring. The...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed