Tribunal roulette: new rules on fees for employment tribunals are just a money spinner

The draft statutory instrument to introduce fees in the Employment Tribunals (ET) and the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) (the Employment Tribunals and the Employment Appeal Tribunal Fees Order 2013) has recently been laid before parliament.

Claimants, or appellants, will be required to pay an issue fee on submitting a claim or appeal and a hearing fee before the full hearing. The anticipated implementation date is - perhaps optimistically - the ?endof July 2013. The fee levels are the ?same as those in response to the ?government consultation.

The official policy aim of the introduction of fees is to transfer some of the cost of running the employment tribunals and Employment Appeal Tribunal from taxpayers to tribunal users. The policy objective is to require users to pay fees where they can afford to do so in order to have their workplace dispute resolved through the ET and EAT process. It is worth taking a moment to reflect on the potential teething problems that may potentially arise under the new regime.

Computer says no

On 25 April 2013, a 'dear stakeholder' letter from HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMC&T) to ET and EAT stakeholders advised that the court service is "currently working with corporate partners and HM Courts & Tribunal Service operational staff to ensure that the necessary IT systems and administrative processes are in place to support the new fee structure". You don't have to be too cynical to think that there may be, at least initially, glitches in the new IT systems.

What practitioners will do if the new IT systems crash - or if online fee payments are not accepted (or received) due to technical glitches - is not immediately clear. Is there a back-up plan?

A recent Q&A document from the court service provides that fee payments will be made via the online service or will be otherwise collected through centralised processing centres. It also confirms that local ET or EAT offices will not have facilities to take fees, handle cash/cheques or undertake any additional banking functions. Remission applications will also be centralised within the centralised processing centres.

Time limits are another potential problem. Will employment judges use their discretion to extend the time limit for bringing a claim if there is a problem with the new IT systems? The Q&A document states: "there is no extension to the existing time-limits for making claims because paying a fee or completing a remission form should not cause the parties to fail to meet existing time-limits". It would seem likely that a strict approach will be taken.

The 'dear stakeholder' letter also provides that in the EAT, fees will be required on lodging the appeal and in advance of the oral hearing. Failure to pay these fees (or prove eligibility for remission) will result in the discontinuation of the appeal. In view of the existing strains on the tribunal system, we will need to consider if there are sufficient resources to deal with an influx ?of new applications and to deal with ?technical appeals.