Table of ContentsFactsJudgesImpact The Case of R (On the Application of UNISON) (Appellant) v Lord Chancellor ( defendant) was one heavily debated by the Supreme Court; I will present to you the facts, the issues and the judgments of the case. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essayThe aim of the Employment Tribunal was to provide an impartial venue for employers and employees to resolve disputes. However, the introduction of fees when filing a claim in 2013 made this system less effective. This case fits into a broad social context because it affects the United Kingdom and works for the population and even society as a whole. If a person has to make a complaint about unfair treatment in the workplace, such as discrimination or unfair dismissal, should they be legally required to pay fees to redress an injustice? Facts The Employment Tribunals and Employment Appeal Tribunals Fees Order 2013 is a piece of legislation. , introduced in 2013, which required payment in order to bring an (employment) action in court. The exception was those who were entitled to a fee remission if their income fell below a certain amount. This legislation was introduced to encourage faster resolution and deter the bringing of unfounded cases. The amount of costs would depend on whether the claim is brought by a single claimant or a group of claimants. Claims were also classified as either Type A, costing £300, usually settled quickly and outside court, or Type B, with more complex issues, for example unfair pay, which would therefore take longer and could totaling £1,200. UNISON brought proceedings for judicial review, arguing that the legislation was unlawful; the government was in breach of its statutory powers and did not have the power to make changes contrary to national and European law. Although rejected by the lower courts, the Supreme Court upheld the appeal and, on July 26, 2017, overturned it. Various complex issues have arisen from this case. Legally, access to justice must be free and accessible to everyone in society. Politically, this shows that protected groups such as women are being targeted and are more likely to bring Type B claims, for example unfair maternity leave. Once the fee was introduced, women were deterred from filing complaints due to the expense. This is prohibited by the Equality Act 2010. This case raises many legal questions, the most important of which is whether the fees imposed by the Lord Chancellor can be considered unlawful because of their effect on access to justice. The law made it impossible for everyone to access the courts and report legal injustices regarding their employment because the fees were unaffordable. To be considered legal, “they must be set at a level affordable for all”. Courts would dismiss cases if they were considered unreasonable, deterring people from filing complaints and subsequently preventing access to justice. Many legal issues were also debated in this case: the constitutional rights of citizens. the government is just one. The case's arguments examine whether the fee order "violated EU law." Everyone has the right to access justice under national and EU law. This is why the government, by preventing this access to justice, the 2007 law was ultravires. The government has deviated from its obligations under these laws to provide everyone with access to the courts. Under EU law, Article 14 of the Human Rights Act states that everyone must have "protection against discrimination" and enjoy equal opportunities between women and men. men. Therefore, this order prevents people from exercising injustices regarding these rights; this was a violation of their statutory powers. Ultimately, being able to speak out against injustices protects the rule of law. The reinstatement of the no-fee regime had many implications; for example, how will previously dismissed cases be affected? Judgments The courts had initially argued that the fees were indeed affordable because there was “no conclusive evidence” that claims were not being filed because of the fees. UNISON had requested figures to show the impact on the number of claims filed since the fees were introduced. Reluctantly, the government showed that the numbers immediately fell, and in particular complaints of discrimination fell dramatically. As the case progressed, the courts agreed that the fees were considered unaffordable because middle- and lower-class households would have to waive them on a day-to-day basis. expenses in order to be able to afford to submit the claim. This contravened political considerations which required that the courts be accessible to all. the law, and if parliamentary laws cannot be enforced, the electoral process could become "a meaningless charade". Adding fees hindered access to justice, which was ultimately deemed illegal. The judges analyzed the use of precedent and the law to make a decision. In assessing the legality of the Employment Tribunals and the Employment Appeals Tribunal Fees Order 2013, made by the Lord Chancellor, they considered the Tribunals, Tribunals and Law Enforcement Act 2007[18 ] (TCEA 2007). Section 42 of the TCEA states that the Lord Chancellor must obtain the approval of the "Principal President of the Tribunals" before introducing costs and must also "take such steps as are reasonably practicable to provide information about costs under of subsection (1) for the attention of persons likely to have to pay them. » The Supreme Court unanimously allowed the appeal. They agreed that people should “be able to assert their rights” and that recourse should be available. Their ratio decidendi was that the Lord Chancellor's powers under section 42 of the Act did not include preventing access to justice. “Was the making of the costs order authorized by the Act? » The judges found that these were statutory challenges and that the order had a negative result on those affected, instead of contributing positively as the law should. In the Supreme Court judgment, the court decided that the fees were not appropriate nor affordable for all. In the case, a former Lord Chancellor had written to the Chancery, disagreeing with the costs order: "In the case of the civil courts, the citizen benefits from the interpretation of the law by the judges and the resolution disputes. whether between the State and the individual or between individuals. »Lord Reid gave his judgment on the illegality of the law and Lady Hale made a statement on this issue of discrimination. those who are at risk of losing their jobs or those who cannot afford to file a complaint. One of the legal impacts of this case will now be that employers will know they are responsible for unfair practices, with employees being able to 35 £..