Unison, Regina (on The Application of) v The Lord Chancellor and Another: Admn 7 Feb 2014

The claimant challenged the Regulations and Orders charging for the laying of complaints at Employment Tribunals, saying they were mistaken and discriminatory.
Held: The challenge failed. The new Order was not in breach of European Union principles of effectiveness or equivalence. Althought the new system was expensive for litigants it was not so to the extent that it made access to the courts either virtually impossible or even excessively difficult. The claim itself was premature, because it was wrong to reach a decision on the impact of the Fees Order on the basis of predictions rather than wait until it was possible to see what its effect had been in practice.
Moses LJ, Irwin J
[2014] ICR 498, [2014] IRLR 266, [2014] WLR(D) 57, [2014] EWHC 218 (Admin), [2014] Eq LR 215
Bailii, WLRD
Employment Tribunals and Employment Appeal Tribunal Fees Order 2013, Courts and Tribunals Fee Remissions Order 2013
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedLevez v T H Jennings (Harlow Pools) Ltd ECJ 1-Dec-1998
Regulations debarred a claim after a certain time even where the delay had been because of a deliberate concealment of information by an employer.
Held: Availability of other means of redress was not sufficient to displace this rule.
CitedCoote v Granada Hospitality Ltd ECJ 22-Sep-1998
coote_granadaECJ1998
The employer had refused to provide a reference after the claimant had left the company after making a sex discrimination claim. She said this was victimisation.
Held: The state has a duty to protect workers against retaliation after . .
CitedCofidis SA v Jean-Louis Fredout ECJ 21-Nov-2002
ECJ Directive 93/13/EEC – Unfair terms in consumer contracts – Action brought by a seller or supplier – National provision prohibiting the national court from finding a term unfair, of its own motion or following . .
CitedDeutsche Telekom Ag v Vick and Another; Same v Schroder; Deutsche Post Ag v Sievers and Another ECJ 28-Mar-2000
The social purposes of the Treaty in article 119 (141 EC) overrode the economic aims of the Treaty. Accordingly the article did not preclude a requirement upon a member state which imposed obligations to satisfy that social aim, even though it migt . .
CitedPodbielski And Ppu Polpure v Poland ECHR 26-Jul-2005
ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) – Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings.
CitedWeissman And Others v Romania ECHR 2-Dec-2011
The Court found violations of the Convention concerning lack of access to a court and the breach of the applicant’s rights to peaceful enjoyment of their possession (violations of Article 6, paragraph 1, and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1) (see details . .
CitedGhaidan v Godin-Mendoza HL 21-Jun-2004
Same Sex Partner Entitled to tenancy Succession
The protected tenant had died. His same-sex partner sought a statutory inheritance of the tenancy.
Held: His appeal succeeded. The Fitzpatrick case referred to the position before the 1998 Act: ‘Discriminatory law undermines the rule of law . .

Cited by:
See AlsoUnison (No 2), Regina (on The Application of) v The Lord Chancellor Admn 17-Dec-2014
The union sought to challenge by judicial review the systems for charges for court fees for claims brought before the employment tribunals.
Held: The challenge failed. On the evidence now available (and not available on the first challenge) . .
Appeal fromUnison, Regina (on The Application of) v The Lord Chancellor CA 26-Aug-2015
Unison brought two challenges to rules brought in to impose fees for the bringing of cases in the Employment Tribunal.
Held: The appeals were dismissed. The imposition of a fee would not constitute an interference with the right of effective . .
At Admn (1)Unison, Regina (on The Application of) v Lord Chancellor SC 26-Jul-2017
The union appellant challenged the validity of the imposition of fees on those seeking to lay complaints in the Employment Tribunal system.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The fees were discriminatory and restricted access to justice.
The . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 05 March 2021; Ref: scu.521079