header-logo header-logo

Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) (Amendment) Regulations 2012 (SI 2012/468)

01 March 2012
Categories: Legislation
printer mail-detail

Amend the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2004, SI 2004/1861 (the 2004 Regulations).

Commencement date
6 April 2012

Legislation Affected

SI 2004/1861 amended


Summary

Increase the maximum amount which an Employment Judge or tribunal may order under a deposit, costs, expenses or preparation order.

Give Employment Judges and tribunals a power to order a party to pay the expenses incurred by a witness in attending a tribunal to give evidence.

Provide that any witness statements should be taken as read and stand as evidence in chief of the witness concerned unless the Employment Judge or tribunal directs otherwise.

Also provide that rule 61(8) of Schedule 1 of the 2004 Regulations, relating to sending documents to the Commission for Equality and Human Rights shall not apply in certain cases where either the Security Service, the Secret Intelligence Service or

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

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Cryptocurrency is reshaping financial remedy cases, warns Robert Webster of Maguire Family Law in NLJ this week. Digital assets—concealable, volatile and hard to trace—are fuelling suspicions of hidden wealth, yet Form E still lacks a section for crypto-disclosure
NLJ columnist Stephen Gold surveys a flurry of procedural reforms in his latest 'Civil way' column
back-to-top-scroll