| 词条 | R (UNISON) v Lord Chancellor |
| 释义 |
| name = R (UNISON) v Lord Chancellor | court = UK Supreme Court | appealed from = Divisional Court of the Administrative Court [2014] EWHC 218 (Admin); Divisional Court of the Administrative Court [2014] EWHC 4198 (Admin); Court of Appeal of England and Wales [2015] EWCA Civ 935 | image = | caption = | date decided = 26 July 2017 | full name = R (on the application of UNISON) v Lord Chancellor | citations = [2017] UKSC 51 | number of judges = 7 | judges = Lord Neuberger, Lady Hale, Lord Mance, Lord Kerr, Lord Wilson, Lord Reed, Lord Hughes | concurring = {{plainlist|
| prior actions = | subsequent actions = | opinions = {{plainlist|
| transcripts = | keywords = Rule of law, Employment Appeal Tribunal Fees Order 2013, Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, judicial review }}R (UNISON) v Lord Chancellor [2017] UKSC 51 is a UK labour law and UK constitutional law judgment of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. It held that fees for employment tribunals are unlawful because they impede access to justice, and defy the rule of law.[1] FactsUNISON claimed that fees for employment tribunals were ultra vires. The UK government introduced £1200 fees to bring a typical case to an employment tribunal through the Employment Tribunals and the Employment Appeal Tribunal Fees Order 2013 (SI 2013/1893). The Lord Chancellor purported to exercise this power under section 42(1) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. UNISON claimed that the order was ultra vires. {{sect-stub|date=August 2017}}JudgmentThe Supreme Court unanimously held that employment tribunal fees were unlawful. {{sect-stub|date=August 2017}}See also{{Clist worker scope}}
Notes{{refs|2}}References{{Supreme Court of the United Kingdom}}{{UK-law-stub}} 3 : Supreme Court of the United Kingdom cases|2017 in British law|United Kingdom constitutional case law |
| 随便看 |
|
开放百科全书收录14589846条英语、德语、日语等多语种百科知识，基本涵盖了大多数领域的百科知识，是一部内容自由、开放的电子版国际百科全书。