header-logo header-logo

01 April 2010
Issue: 7411 & 7412 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Economic downturn sparks panel recruitment drive

More panel members appointed as employment disputes rise

Employment tribunals struggling to cope with the deluge of claims created by the economic downturn are to be given extra help after a major recruitment drive.

The lord chancellor has approved 341 new appointments of panel members to employment tribunals. At tribunal, employment disputes are heard by a panel comprising an employment judge and two impartial panel members, one each with “employer” and “employee” experience. Panel members must have an understanding of employment law and experience of dealing with grievances and other workplace issues.

Jeremy Nixon, employment partner at Thring Townsend Lee & Pembertons, says the number of employment disputes had certainly increased. “In an environment where people are dismissed from one job and immediately go into another, they are less inclined to go to the time, expense and hassle of pursuing a claim before a tribunal. Where jobs are scarce, the opposite is true and people may well bring claims before the tribunal.

“Economists say that unemployment is a lagging indicator of economic activity. If this is right and unemployment continues at a high level then the number of tribunal claims will also remain high for a few years to come.”
Kevin Sadler, chief executive of the Tribunals Service says: “Employment tribunals have been under pressure in the last year, as we would expect in more difficult economic conditions.

“But the Tribunals Service is coping well with the higher workload and we have significantly increased the number of cases of which we have successfully disposed. We’re also providing more resources. Thirty five employment judges were recruited last year, the new panel members will increase our capacity and further fee paid judges are being recruited.

“These new members will help to ensure each case is fair and unbiased by providing added insight into employee/employer relations, helping the tribunal to come to its decision.”
 

Issue: 7411 & 7412 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Laytons ETL—Maximilian Kraitt

Laytons ETL—Maximilian Kraitt

Commercial firm strengthens real estate disputes team with associate hire

Switalskis—three appointments

Switalskis—three appointments

Firm appoints three directors to board

Browne Jacobson—seven promotions

Browne Jacobson—seven promotions

Six promoted to partner and one to legal director across UK and Ireland offices

NEWS

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
back-to-top-scroll