Changes to the legal system come into force today, with workers being charged for bringing cases against their bosses to employment tribunals. Employees will pay £150-£260 initially, and then there will be a further charge of between £230 and £950 for the hearing. You can read all of the guidance here.
The politics of this are relatively clear: business groups, especially those representing small businesses, welcome the effort to tackle ‘vexatious claims’, which impede their operation and confidence. Trade unions say that there are no reliable figures on the number of vexatious claims; and they point out that the number of cases being brought is declining. The government talks of the need to protect business and the public purse. Legal groups counter with warnings (among many other things) about litigants in person clogging up the system.
In some ways, this is a prelude to the row over cuts to legal aid (the Times has a useful piece on this today). Lawyers and some constitutional experts say that it is wholly wrong to limit the public’s access to the judicial system, to which the government replies that ‘meritorious claims will always be heard’. How so, when people can’t afford the costs? There will, the government says, be waivers for those on benefits. The loser will pay the winner’s costs. And there will help to provide mediation between parties rather than litigating.
Lawyers will tell you that mediation is preferable to litigation; but there are clear principles at stake here: right of access to the courts, and the right to a fair hearing and competent representation. The government talks tough on justice reform, but has been forced into retreat on occasions – on the right choose representation, for instance. Lawyers who are opposed to the government’s plans are confident that there will be further retreats. Perhaps they will have been encouraged by Helen Grant, the minister responsible for the employment tribunal changes, who told the Today programme that she will be watching these new charges very closely and would look at them again if they were not working fairly and effectively.
Comments