Charging Fees in Employment Tribunals and the ... - Ministry of Justice

Charging Fees in Employment Tribunals and the Employment Appeal Tribunal Summary ofresponsesprocesses to support the fee structure we will explore whether it is possible toset payment of the hearing fee after exchange of witness statements. Ifsettlement takes place before the hearing fee is due and the Tribunal isformally notified of that settlement then no hearing fee would be required to bepaid.169. There was little comment on our proposals not to refund the issue fee, exceptin limited circumstances. There was some support for the approach of norefunds for hearing fees with 35 agreeing with the proposals under Option 1.The majority of these came from business groups. One comment made wasthat no refunds was a useful aid to settling claims and that it was unfair to placeburden on taxpayer if settlement was reached.170. 69 respondents disagreed with Option 1 refund proposals and felt that it wasunfair not to have the hearing fee refunded when the case was settled.Moreover the lack of refunds would deter settlement in two ways either by therespondent waiting to see if the claimant paid the hearing fee, or by theclaimant refusing to settle because they wanted the hearing they had paid for.The Law Centres Federation supported the Law Society’s comment that:If a fee is non-refundable, a party may take the view thatthey have made the investment and, therefore, may as wellproceed. This is counter to the objective of encouragingsettlement where possible … The limits on refunds ofhearing fees also run counter to the objective ofencouraging settlement. Settlement should always beencouraged, at any stage, as it will always result in somesaving of time and often costs.171. Other comments were:Refunds should be made when the tribunal has made an error (e.g.accidentally taking 2 fees);Refunds should be made when a claimant downgrades their claim; andIt is often not appropriate to settle until after disclosure, if there are norefunds then a fee must be charged nearer to the hearing and afterwitness statements have been exchanged.172. We received 87 replies to question 27. Around a third agreed with refundproposals under Option 2, with businesses expressly coming out in agreementwith the proposals, and a small proportion of equality groups also supporting.173. Those who disagreed with the refund proposals for Option 2 did so for thesame reasons as those disagreeing with the Option 1 refund proposals. Theonly additional factor raised by respondents was that in Option 1, there is atleast a split of the fee between issue and hearing, meaning that if settlementoccurred prior to hearing fee being due there would be no requirement to payit. In Option 2, the two fees are rolled up together in a single fee at issue, with41