First revived claim under the new No Tribunal Fee’s regime



In Dhami v Tesco Stores Limited, Ms Dhami sued Tesco for disability and age discrimination in the Employment Tribunal. She applied for a fee remission but her application was rejected and her case was thrown out when she could not pay the fees.

The Supreme Court ruled in the Unison case that the Government’s employment tribunal fees regime was unlawful. Under Section 123(1)(b) of the Equality Act 2010, the employment tribunal can extend the usual three-month time limit for bringing a discrimination claim if it is “just and equitable” to do so.

Ms Dhami took her claim back after the Unison ruling and convinced the Employment Tribunal that her case should be revived, on the basis that it would be “just and equitable” for the time limit on her claim to be extended.

Miss Dhami argued that since the Supreme Court had ruled that the 2013 Fees Order was unlawful from its inception, all decisions made under it, including the rejection of original claim, were also unlawful. She said that her original claim was only rejected because of the obligation to pay unlawful Tribunal fees and so it would be “just and equitable” for the tribunal to give her more time under section 123(1)(b) of the Equality Act 2010.

On 10 August 2017, Employment Judge Wright (in the Southampton Employment Tribunal) agreed and granted Ms Dhami an extension of time. The Judge took account of the fact that Ms Dhami had tried to bring a claim in time but had this opportunity denied by the rejection of her original claim for non-payment of what were unlawful fees.


Business, Finance & Law