Posts Tagged ‘costs’

Consultation opened for employment tribunal fees

Wednesday, December 14th, 2011

Following the government announcing its intention to introduce fees in employment tribunals, today the Ministry of Justice has opened a consultation, inviting tribunal users to comment on the way those fees will be structured. The two options for consideration are:

  • an initial fee of £150-£250 to bring a claim, with an additional fee of £250-1,250 if it goes to hearing, with no limit on the maximum award,or
  • a single fee of £200-600 and a £30,000 limit on the maximum award (with the option to pay an additional £1,750 if an award over £30,000 is sought)

Last year the tribunal system cost the taxpayer £84 million to run. The primary aim of the fee is to ensure claimants make a contribution towards this cost. From an employer’s perspective, however, this should also discourage claimants from bringing claims and reduce their expectations of the maximum award that they may obtain if successful. This in turn should assist employers in recruiting without fear of such claims being brought.

Posted by Hayley Prescott, who specialises in employment law, both contentious and non-contentious, including tribunal claims, unfair dismissal, redundancy, policies and procedures, compromise agreements, contractual issues and general advisory work.

Hayley Prescott

Hayley Prescott
0115 976 6116
hprescott@brownejacobson.com

VN:F [1.9.11_1134]
Rating: 10.0/10 (1 vote cast)

Sharing the burden

Friday, August 27th, 2010

The debate about the future of litigation costs rages on. The Adam Smith Institute is the latest body to publish a report proposing reform to the CFA regime, and the abolition of legal aid for most claims.

The report’s author, Anthony Barton, proposes a cap on recoverable success fees and ATE premiums accompanied by a modest uplift in general damages to address the concern that claimants will be left less well off. The great strength of his report is in placing legal costs issues in the context of the current economic situation.

Barton is critical of Lord Justice Jackson’s proposals in relation to one way costs shifting and expresses concern in relation to the potential for unintended consequences, including spurious claims and fraud.

Jacksons’ recommendations should not be dismissed lightly and are likely to be at the heart of the Government’s proposed consultation in Autumn. Whether or not his conclusions prove correct, Barton’s report is also deserving of further consideration in the months ahead.

Posted by James Arrowsmith, who specialises in high value personal injury claims, extensive experience of claims relating to head injuries and serious bodily injury, psychiatric damage and injuries to children.

James Arrowsmith

James Arrowsmith
0121 237 3981
jarrowsmith@brownejacobson.com

VN:F [1.9.11_1134]
Rating: 9.0/10 (3 votes cast)