header-logo header-logo

22 July 2016 / Paul McFarlane , Joanne Owers
Issue: 7708 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail

All for one and…

nlj_7708_owers_mcfarlane-

Joanne Owers & Paul McFarlane on the spectre of a single employment court

  • Why is a single employment court being discussed?
  • ELA’s proposals—three-tier system.
  • Technology, access to justice and lessons from other jurisdictions.

Statutory employment protection claims have been heard in the Employment Tribunal (formerly the Industrial Tribunal) since the 1970s. A protocol was agreed in the mid 2000s (2005/2006) under which the Employment Tribunal’s Service “retains a separate identity within the overall Tribunal Service, forming a distinct pillar within the organisation”. Much has changed since the 1970s in terms of the depth and breadth of statutory employment protection laws but at least until the advent of Employment Tribunal fees in 2013 and the widely welcomed new Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure of the same year, very little had changed in the way in which Employment Tribunals operated or the cases they heard.

In recent times however momentum appears to be gathering both from the legislature and judiciary to reform Employment Tribunals and move them from their “separate pillar” into the civil

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Construction team bolstered by hire of senior consultant duo

Switalskis—four appointments

Switalskis—four appointments

Firm expands residential conveyancing team with quadruple appointment

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

Private client team welcomes senior associatein Worcester

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll