Policy News Journal - 2012-13

The majority went on to suggest that Parliament should consider relaxing the strict six month limitation period for employment tribunal equal pay claims, and warned that (1) Claimants who were found to have deliberately delayed bringing tribunal proceedings in order to gain an "illegitimate advantage" by bringing court proceedings risked having their claims struck out under the general rules on abuse of process, and (2) if a court decided that an individual should reasonably have presented a claim in time to the employment tribunal, this was something it could take into account in awarding costs. Workplace Law reported that this decision by the Supreme Court will affect “thousands of potential claimants” (according to Law firm Leigh Day & Co, which represents women trying to launch compensation claims). Speaking before the ruling, a Leigh Day spokesman revealed: "The Supreme Court will give a landmark judgment which could represent the most radical reform to Equal Pay since the original legislation was introduced in 1970 and will have huge implications for thousands of workers. "If the council is unsuccessful and the Supreme Court was to uphold the decision of the Court of Appeal, it would make it possible for thousands of workers to bring claims against their employers outside of the current time limitation period of six months in the Employment Tribunal."

The result means that the former workers now have six years to submit their compensation claims, and can seek the compensation through the Civil Courts system.

HMRC WINS APPEAL IN HOK P35 LATE FILING PENALTIES CASE

1 November 2012

In the case Hok Ltd v HMRC an upper tier tax tribunal has overturned a lower tribunal decision which had ruled that the PAYE penalties regime was unfair on the taxpayer.

The first-tier tribunal had allowed, in part, an appeal by the company against penalties imposed on it by HMRC for failure to submit an employer’s end of year return by the due date. The company had accepted that the return was late and that there was no reasonable excuse for the delay. HMRC did not tell the company that no return had been received until five months later when it finally sent it a penalty notice. Because of this the company accrued a further £500 fine, £100 for each month that the return remained outstanding. The tribunal concluded, on grounds of fairness, that the company should only be penalised for the first of the five months which passed before the return was actually submitted and not the subsequent five months. HMRC appealed against that decision and the upper tribunal has now held that it was not open to the First-tier Tribunal to cancel a penalty for unfairness, so the original penalties against Hok still stand.

CIPP Comment

Although HMRC have been successful in their appeal, as a result of the number of complaints regarding the build-up of late penalty charges, they did accept that they needed to address the issue. So back in March 2012 HMRC pledged to end the controversy surrounding this issue by providing information to employers in a more timely and efficient manner, in an effort to ensure a greater number of year end returns are submitted by the deadline.

CIPP Policy News Journal

12/04/2013, Page 65 of 362

Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker