header-logo header-logo

13 September 2007
Issue: 7288 / Categories: Legal News , Tribunals , Employment
printer mail-detail

Employment tribunal cases rise by 15%

News

The number of cases brought to employment tribunals in Britain in 2006–07 rose by 15%, from 115,039 in 2005–06 to 132,577, new figures from the Tribunals Service reveal.

Those disposed of last year also rose, by 19%, from 86,083 to 102,597. Unfair dismissal remains the most popular ground of claim: there were 44,491 of these compared to 41,832 the previous year.
Race discrimination cases were one of the few categories which saw a drop, falling from 4,103 in 2005–06 to 3,780 in 2006–07, while equal pay claims shot up to 44,013 compared to 17,268 the year before. Sex discrimination cases, meanwhile, almost doubled —rising from 14,250 to 28,153 year on year. Many of these, the research reveals, were brought in conjunction with equal pay claims.

Jeanne Spinks, chief operating officer of the Tribunals Service which administers employment tribunals, says: “The significant reason for the increase in employment tribunal cases in 2006–07 is a 155% increase in equal pay claims. We have set up two dedicated teams to process equal pay cases from NHS staff and have been working closely with our judiciary to ensure that all equal pay claims are progressed as efficiently as possible.”
She adds: “Despite an overall increase in cases this year, we’ve also managed to reduce the waiting times for single cases appearing before employment tribunals.”

Lyndon Willshire, sales manager at legal expenses insurer DAS UK, says the new figures dash suggestions that employee relations are becoming less combative and predicts a further rise in claims.

“The government’s attempts to reduce the number of claims going to tribunal have clearly only had a temporary effect. The three stage mandatory grievance procedure has not created a forum for mediation, rather a mechanism for concluding matters more efficiently. More legislation is on the way, and the effects of recent laws on age, belief and sexual orientation have yet to bite,” he adds.

Issue: 7288 / Categories: Legal News , Tribunals , Employment
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