Brazil Supreme Court changes legal aid requirements in labour litigation

At a glance

• The Brazilian Supreme Court has ruled that employees earning up to BRL5,000 per month will only benefit from a rebuttable presumption of financial insufficiency when seeking legal aid in labour proceedings.
• The Supreme Court declared Item I of TST Precedent No. 463 unconstitutional, overturning guidance that allowed a simple declaration of financial hardship to establish entitlement to legal aid.
• Claimants seeking legal aid must now prove their income level or financial insufficiency, and judges may require supporting documentation.
• The decision places a greater evidential burden on employees and former employees seeking exemption from litigation costs.
• The ruling is expected to reduce the number of labour claims and discourage abusive litigation practices in Brazil's highly litigious employment environment.

On 3 September, Brazil's Supreme Court issued a significant ruling affecting access to legal aid in labour litigation. The Court held that employees earning up to BRL5,000 (approximately USD1,000) per month will benefit only from a rebuttable presumption of financial insufficiency when applying for legal aid.

As part of its decision, the Supreme Court declared Item I of TST Precedent (Súmula) No. 463 unconstitutional. This precedent had long served as guidance for labour courts and allowed individual claimants to obtain legal aid based solely on a declaration of financial hardship signed either by the claimant or their legal representative.

The Supreme Court ruled that the burden of demonstrating financial need rests with the claimant seeking the benefit. Labour judges may also request additional evidence to verify a claimant's income level or financial circumstances before granting legal aid.

The decision represents an important shift in Brazilian labour litigation, introducing stricter requirements for obtaining legal aid and increasing the evidential burden on claimants. It is expected to reduce the volume of labour claims and help curb abusive litigation practices in a jurisdiction known for a strong culture of employment-related disputes.