news round up
22
the barrister
INTRODUCING FEES IN THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS CONSULTATION RESPONSE Government proposals to introduce fees for those bringing claims in Employment Tribunals and the Employment Appeal Tribunal could backfire, warns the Employment Lawyers Association (ELA), representing more than 5,800 specialist employment solicitors and barristers. More than 40 of ELA’s members met in working groups to examine in detail alternative charging options contained in the Ministry of Justice’s consultation document.
NEW MARKET REVEALS NEW OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE BAR – BAR COUNCIL DIRECTOR TELLS LPMA CONFERENCE On 24/02/12 the Director of Representation and Policy of the Bar Council, which represents barristers in England and Wales, highlighted the important and relevant role
In their view, whichever option the Government chooses to adopt, its twin aims
of the modern Bar in a keynote address to
of massively reducing the cost of running the tribunals, while maintaining access,
the 2012 Conference of the Legal Practice
would be defeated. In 2010/11 218,100 claims were brought in employment
Managers Association (LPMA).
tribunals (ETs) and 2,048 appeals. The total cost to the Exchequer of the ETs and EAT was £84.2 million. At present, it is free to lodge a claim.
Addressing an audience of chief executives, practice managers, and clerks, Mark Hatcher
ELA notes that the decision to introduce fees has already been taken. Whilst
commended the LPMA’s role in the continued
accepting that this is a matter for Government, ELA is disappointed that there was
success of the wider Bar community and
no opportunity for consultation on the principle of charging fees. Its concern with
its relevance to a competitive, globalised,
regard to the implementation of this decision is that the charging regime should
increasingly commercialised and more highly
be practical, easy to administer and such that it does not restrict someone with a
regulated new market which is the subject of
justified claim from seeing that claim through to a legitimate end.
a high level of public interest.
Government Option 1 proposes a fee to recover a proportion of the service costs,
Hatcher remarked on the Bar Council’s need
which would vary for single claims depending on the nature of the claim and the
to remain relevant to all of its constituents,
stage of proceedings; for multiple claims, the number of claimants would be an
and to strike the right balance between the
added factor affecting the fee. Option 2 proposes an initial charge when the claim is lodged, with variations for the value of the claim, multiple claims and the number of people involved. Claims over £30,000 would be subject to a higher charge set to recover the estimated full cost. The provisional figure proposed under Option 2 is £1,750; unless this fee had been paid, the ET would not be able to award more than £30,000 in compensation, whatever the loss assessed. Peter Wallington QC of 11 KBW Chambers and Paul Statham of Pattinson and
interests of the profession, the consumer and the public, and outline the ways in which it is achieving this, from its campaign to protect legal aid for the vulnerable, to lobbying on LSC payments for the publicly-funded Bar, to its leading role in the Unlocking Disputes campaign to promote London as the world’s leading dispute resolution centre.
Brewer, who jointly chaired the ELA sub committee which examined the proposals, say:
“The Bar, in its widest sense, makes a notable contribution to exports of legal services
“The Government is in danger of implementing a fee system which will be
which is not always fully appreciated. The
expensive to administer and generate relatively little revenue. At the same time
Bar Council and members of the LPMA have
they risk excluding legitimate claimants from the tribunal system, either because
an excellent opportunity further to develop
they do not fully understand the new fees requirements, or because they simply
the Bar’s business as we discover new
cannot afford the cost of bringing a claim, but do not qualify for remission of
markets and new ways of delivering specialist
the fees. We are also concerned about the possible disproportionate impact fees will have on the already disadvantaged, and the likelihood that the fee regime will result in cases being less easy to settle without a full hearing, precisely the opposite of what the Government seeks, and we would endorse, as a policy.”
advocacy and advisory services that are efficient, cost effective and valued by clients. The Chairman of the Bar, together with the rest of the Bar Council, looks forward to developing an even closer relationship with
ELA’s main points of concern can be read at:
the wider Bar community as we pursue this
http://www.barristermagazine.com/services/press-releases/
common and worthwhile goal.”