IndexFactsJudgmentsImpact The case of R (on the application of UNISON) (appellant) v Lord Chancellor (respondent) was one hotly debated by the Supreme Court; I will present to you the facts, issues and judgments of the case. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay The purpose of the Employment Tribunal was to provide employers and employees with an impartial venue to resolve disputes. However, the introduction of fees for making a complaint in 2013 has made this system less effective. This case has a broad social context as it affects the UK working population and indeed society as a whole. If someone has to make a complaint about unfair treatment in the workplace, such as discrimination or unfair dismissal, should they legally have to pay a fee to correct an injustice? Facts The Employment Tribunals and Employment Appeal Tribunal Fees Order 2013 is a piece of legislation , introduced in 2013, which required payment in order to bring an (employment-related) complaint to tribunal. The exception was for those who were entitled to rates relief if their income was below a certain amount. This legislation was introduced to encourage early settlement and to discourage the filing of unfounded lawsuits. The amount of the fee would depend on whether the suit was brought by a single plaintiff or a group of plaintiffs. Disputes were also classified as Type A, which cost £300, usually resolved quickly and out of court, or Type B, for more complex issues, such as unfair wages, which would therefore take longer and could amount to £ 1,200. UNISON brought proceedings for judicial review, arguing that the legislation was unlawful; the government was breaching its statutory powers and had no authority to make changes that contradicted national and EU law. Although rejected at the levels of judgement, the Supreme Court accepted the appeal and, on 26 July 2017, it was quashed. A series of complex issues arose from this case. From a legal perspective, access to justice must be free and accessible to everyone in society. Policy-wise, it emerged that protected groups such as women were being targeted and were more likely to make Type B claims, such as unfair maternity leave. Once the fees were introduced, women were subsequently dissuaded from making a complaint due to the costs incurred. This is prohibited by the Equality Act 2010. There are numerous legal questions surrounding the case, the most important of which is whether the fees, imposed by the Lord Chancellor, can be considered unlawful due to their effect on access to justice. The law made it impossible for all people to access the courts and enforce injustices in the law affecting their employment, as the fees were unaffordable. To be considered legitimate, “they must be set at a level accessible to all.” Courts would dismiss cases if they were deemed unreasonable, this also acted as a deterrent for people to pursue their cases and consequently this prevented access to justice. Many questions of law were also debated in this case: the constitutional rights of the government is one. The arguments in the case examine whether the Tax Ordinance “violated EU law”. Everyone has the right to access justice under national and EU law, so the Government was ultra vires in preventing this access to justice with the 2007 Act. Thegovernment has waived its obligations under these laws to allow everyone access to the courts. Under EU law, Article 14 of the Human Rights Act states that everyone should have "protection from discrimination" and equal opportunities between women and men. So this order prevents people from exercising injustice on these rights; this was a breach of their statutory powers. Ultimately, being able to carry out injustices protects the rule of law. There were many implications of bringing back the tax-free regime; for example, how will previously dismissed cases be affected? Rulings The courts had initially supported the case that the tariffs were indeed affordable as there was no "conclusive evidence" that claims had not been made because of the tariffs. UNISON had requested data to show the impact on the number of appeals lodged since the introduction of the fees. Reluctantly, the government showed that numbers dropped immediately and, in particular, discrimination complaints dropped dramatically. As the case developed, the courts agreed that the rates were considered unaffordable because lower-middle-class families would have to give up day after day. expenses to be able to afford to make the claim. This violated political considerations that required the courts to be accessible to all. the law, and if parliamentary laws cannot be enforced, the electoral process could become “a senseless farce”. Adding taxes prevented access to justice, so it was ultimately deemed illegal. The justices analyzed the use of precedent and statute in making a decision. In assessing the legality of the Employment Tribunals and the Employment Appeals Tribunal Fees Order 2013, issued by the Lord Chancellor, they examined the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007[18] (TCEA 2007). S 42 of the TCEA provides that the Lord Chancellor must obtain the approval of the “Senior President of the Tribunals” before introducing fees and that he must also “take such steps as are reasonably practicable to provide information on the fees referred to in subsection (1 ) to the attention of people who may have to pay them.” The Supreme Court allowed the appeal unanimously. They agreed that people should “be able to enforce their rights” and that a remedy should be available 'Article 42 of the Act did not include prevention of access to justice. "Whether the issuance of the tax ordinance was authorized by law?" The judges saw that there were legal issues involved and the ordinance had a negative result for those affected, instead of contributing positively as the law should. In the Supreme Court ruling, the court decided that the rates were not adequate, nor accessible to all. Obiter dicta in the case included a previous Lord Chancellor who had written to the chancellor, disagreeing with the Fees Order: “In the case of civil courts the citizen benefits from the interpretation of the law by judges and the resolution of disputes, both between the State and the individual and between individuals.” Lord Reid gave his opinion on how the law was illegal and Lady Hale made a statement on the issue of discrimination. Impact The ruling was welcomed by many people who were afraid to speak out at risk of losing their jobs or those who could not afford to make a complaint. One legal impact of the case will now be that employers will know they are liable for unfair practices with employees £ 30-£ 35.