Shopping & Style1 min ago
Employment Tribunal Fees Unlawful, Supreme Court Rules
http:// www.bbc .co.uk/ news/uk -407274 00
Huge disappointment for this vengeful Government, and not before time.
Huge disappointment for this vengeful Government, and not before time.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by mikey4444. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.This is a mistake.
By attaching a charge only those who had a genuine reason for bringing a tribunal pursued it - by making it risk free there will be spurious claims.
These spurious claims will add to the workload of all involved, including management time of the company being accused - which is expensive - which can have a detrimental effect on the company.
I have been involved in quite a few spurious claims (one person was consistently late, and after being pulled up on a number of times by her line manager, she resigned and claimed constructive dismissal as a result of bullying - she brought the claim because it was risk free and she just wanted to cause trouble: had there been a charge she would not have brought the claim) and they take up a shed load of management time.....and cost.
By attaching a charge only those who had a genuine reason for bringing a tribunal pursued it - by making it risk free there will be spurious claims.
These spurious claims will add to the workload of all involved, including management time of the company being accused - which is expensive - which can have a detrimental effect on the company.
I have been involved in quite a few spurious claims (one person was consistently late, and after being pulled up on a number of times by her line manager, she resigned and claimed constructive dismissal as a result of bullying - she brought the claim because it was risk free and she just wanted to cause trouble: had there been a charge she would not have brought the claim) and they take up a shed load of management time.....and cost.
I don't see why you think the decision (implemented 2013) was vengeful, mikey- there was a reason given which was accepted at the time to be a good reason based on the system being clogged up by vexatious or speculative claims, but I think it was too blunt an instrument. A nominal charge though, refundable in the case of success, would seem reasonable though
well there are always two sides to an action
Desk Diary is quite wrong
and the argument was advanced by the govt in their submissions
https:/ /www.su premeco urt.uk/ cases/d ocs/uks c-2015- 0233-ju dgment. pdf
and was basically refuted and that was because ..... the reduction had occurred across the board - up to 60% in some sections
so whether or not it was intended to limit the time wasters
all it had done was produce a reduction 'globally'
read all 42 pages if you want....
they drag in 1215 - nulli vendimus - nulli negabimus
we will sell to no man - we will deny to no man ( ... justice and right we will not delay....)
oh para 57
The Lord Chancellor accepts that there is no basis for
concluding that only stronger cases are being litigated.
[well that settles desk diaries unsupported claim .....]
a little later - Coke -
Plena, quia Justitia non debet claudicare; &
Celeris, quia dilatio est quaedam negatio
full - because Justice must not limp - n quig - because justice delayed is justice denied
[ ah come arn - quae dilatio est quedam negatio sounz really good]
with phrases like that
not surprisingly their lordships said
'the fees are all off'
Desk Diary is quite wrong
and the argument was advanced by the govt in their submissions
https:/
and was basically refuted and that was because ..... the reduction had occurred across the board - up to 60% in some sections
so whether or not it was intended to limit the time wasters
all it had done was produce a reduction 'globally'
read all 42 pages if you want....
they drag in 1215 - nulli vendimus - nulli negabimus
we will sell to no man - we will deny to no man ( ... justice and right we will not delay....)
oh para 57
The Lord Chancellor accepts that there is no basis for
concluding that only stronger cases are being litigated.
[well that settles desk diaries unsupported claim .....]
a little later - Coke -
Plena, quia Justitia non debet claudicare; &
Celeris, quia dilatio est quaedam negatio
full - because Justice must not limp - n quig - because justice delayed is justice denied
[ ah come arn - quae dilatio est quedam negatio sounz really good]
with phrases like that
not surprisingly their lordships said
'the fees are all off'
// there was a reason given which was accepted at the time to be a good reason based on the system being clogged up by vexatious or speculative claims, but I think it was too blunt an instrument. A nominal charge though, refundable in the case of success, would seem reasonable though//
oh dear all these are arguments are considered
no not clogged - but some of the claims are small
the average award is £500 - and if the fee is £260
I am not sure if I would advise anyone to litigate
( small claim I think it would be £80. ALSO considered in the judgement)
initially litigated too early apparently
the surveys showed a reduction
whereas in 2014 - the courts threw out cases of - this may happen and that may happen.
oh dear all these are arguments are considered
no not clogged - but some of the claims are small
the average award is £500 - and if the fee is £260
I am not sure if I would advise anyone to litigate
( small claim I think it would be £80. ALSO considered in the judgement)
initially litigated too early apparently
the surveys showed a reduction
whereas in 2014 - the courts threw out cases of - this may happen and that may happen.
DD...the Government lost the Court case, principally because the law was unfair. Poor people deserve access to the law as well as wealthy people.
Unlike other recent Court cases that it has lost, this time Mrs May isn't going to waste any more public money in appealing.
From my link ::::: "The government said it would take steps to stop charging and refund payments"
End of story.
Unlike other recent Court cases that it has lost, this time Mrs May isn't going to waste any more public money in appealing.
From my link ::::: "The government said it would take steps to stop charging and refund payments"
End of story.
It is the end of the story Mikey - you are spot on.
Doesn't make it right though in my view.
PP - I can only speak from experience, and from experience when it was risk free I was involved in a lot of spurious claims, but when it became chargeable the spurious claims fell off a cliff, by and large leaving only those which were genuine.
Doesn't make it right though in my view.
PP - I can only speak from experience, and from experience when it was risk free I was involved in a lot of spurious claims, but when it became chargeable the spurious claims fell off a cliff, by and large leaving only those which were genuine.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.