The Tribunal Fees Order is unlawful and discriminatory
27th July 2017
3PB Employment barrister Sarah Bowen reviews the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in R (on the application of UNISON) v Lord Chancellor [2017] UKSC 51 that Tribunal fees are unlawful and discriminatory and considers what might happen next!
To read Sarah's analysis, please click here.
Related News
-
3PB barristers and its Employment and Discrimination team have cause for celebration as they are confirmed as a top tier team in the Western and South Eastern Circuits in the latest Legal 500 edition. Praised by clients as “‘an excellent set’ with an employment team ‘packed full of top-tier barristers’ and an excellent track record for advising across the full spectrum of employment law matters”, 3PB is regarded as “‘a chambers with a wide skill...
Continue reading -
3PB’s employment law team is celebrating another strong set of results in Chambers and Partners’ 2025 edition published today, with a total of 18 individual rankings for 16 of our employment barristers in London, Western, South Eastern and the Midlands Circuits While clients’ comments on our individual barristers once again testify to their dedication and excellence, our clerking team, led by Russell Porter, also attracts much praise and is seen as 'absolutely brilliant and going...
Continue reading -
3PB Barristers (3 Paper Buildings), one of the UK's largest chambers, is celebrating this year again its rankings - totalling 167 - in the Legal 500 2025’s edition published today, a 15% increase on last year’s 145. The set is ranked in 23 areas of law, across 4 UK Circuits: London, South Eastern, Western and the Midlands. 3PB’s barristers are also ranked in the Middle East and Asia Pacific regions. The Legal 500 acknowledges 3PB...
Continue reading -
The Employment Tribunal has dismissed a claim against a local authority brought by an 'as and when' or 'sessional' social worker. The respondent, Harrow Council, hired the claimant on a casual basis and worked on a variety of projects over a period of 11 years for the youth justice team. The respondent accepted that the claimant was a 'worker' but denied that he had become an 'employee', entitled to bring a claim for constructive dismissal following a...
Continue reading
