R (on the application of Unison) v Lord Chancellor

Definition

R (on the application of Unison) v Lord Chancellor is a landmark case decided by the UK Supreme Court in 2017, which addressed the legality of employment tribunal fees introduced in 2013. The court ruled that the fees were unlawful as they effectively prevented access to justice, undermining the right to a fair hearing. This case is significant in illustrating the role of the Supreme Court in protecting fundamental rights and ensuring that the law serves justice rather than obstructing it.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

1. The Supreme Court's decision in R (Unison) v Lord Chancellor led to the abolition of tribunal fees, highlighting the court's commitment to upholding access to justice.
2. This case was brought by Unison, a trade union, which argued that the fees were exorbitant and disproportionate, effectively barring many workers from seeking justice in employment disputes.
3. The ruling reinforced the principle that access to justice is a fundamental right within the UK legal system, which cannot be impeded by financial constraints.
4. The court found that the introduction of fees had a chilling effect on individuals pursuing their claims, leading to a significant drop in claims made to employment tribunals.
5. The decision set a precedent for future cases concerning access to justice and judicial review, emphasizing that legislation must not violate fundamental rights.

Review Questions

• How did R (on the application of Unison) v Lord Chancellor demonstrate the Supreme Court's role in protecting access to justice?
  • The case illustrated the Supreme Court's critical function in safeguarding access to justice by ruling that tribunal fees imposed by the Lord Chancellor were unlawful. The court emphasized that these fees created an obstacle for individuals seeking legal redress, effectively denying them their right to a fair hearing. By declaring the fees unconstitutional, the Supreme Court reaffirmed its role as a guardian of fundamental rights, ensuring that financial barriers do not impede individuals from pursuing justice.
• Discuss the implications of R (Unison) v Lord Chancellor on future legislation concerning employment law and access to justice.
  • The implications of R (Unison) v Lord Chancellor are significant for future legislation as it sets a clear precedent regarding access to justice. The ruling signals to lawmakers that any changes affecting individuals' rights must be carefully scrutinized for their impact on access to legal remedies. This case may encourage future challenges against any legislative measures perceived as restricting access to justice, thereby reinforcing the importance of fair legal processes in employment law and beyond.
• Evaluate how R (on the application of Unison) v Lord Chancellor reflects broader constitutional principles within the UK legal system.
  • R (Unison) v Lord Chancellor reflects broader constitutional principles by emphasizing the importance of individual rights and accountability of public bodies. The Supreme Court's decision showcases its role as an arbiter in maintaining a balance between government actions and citizens' rights, aligning with principles of fairness and legality inherent in constitutional law. The case reinforces that access to justice is not merely an administrative concern but a cornerstone of democratic governance, ensuring that laws serve all citizens equitably.

Related terms

Access to Justice: The principle that individuals should have the opportunity to seek legal remedies and representation without barriers, including financial impediments.

Judicial Review: The process by which courts examine the actions of public bodies to ensure they comply with the law and do not violate individuals' rights.

Constitutional Law: A body of law which defines the relationship between different entities within a state, primarily focusing on the rights of individuals and the powers of government.