header-logo header-logo

06 June 2014 / Michael Salter , Chris Bryden
Issue: 7609 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail

Executive decisions

web_employment_executive_decisions_bryden

Chris Bryden & Michael Salter discuss presidential guidance

Previous iterations of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure provided for the making of practice directions. The Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 (SI 2013/1237) do not alter this settled procedure, but they additionally permit the promulgation of Presidential Guidance by the sitting President (r 7 of the 2013 Rules (contained within reg 13(1), Sch 1 of the 2013 Regulations)).

In both s 7A of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 (ETA 1996) and r 7 of the 2013 Rules the word “guidance” is used. ETA 1996 states that guidance about the application or interpretation or the making of decisions by members of the employment tribunal, unlike practice directions, do not require the approval of the senior president of the lord chancellor. Rule 7 of the 2013 Rules requires that the president publishes any guidance “in an appropriate manner to bring it to the attention of claimants, respondents and their advisors” and that the Guidance is to cover “matters of practice and as

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

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

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