header-logo header-logo

30 October 2014 / Clare Harrington , Daniel Hobbs
Issue: 7628 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail

The hidden costs

harringtonhobbs

What is the true price of defending an employment tribunal claim? Clare Harrington & Daniel Hobbs report

Since the introduction of fees in the employment tribunal and the consequent reduction in claims, it might be thought that it is the employer who now comfortably has the upper hand in this jurisdiction. In the majority of claims, the claimant is now required to comply with the requirements of early conciliation and he must pay a fee to issue his claim or navigate the application process for remission. The necessity to pay fees (in circumstances where remission is unavailable) does not stop, of course, with the issue of the claim, with further payments required to progress to a final hearing. These elements of the process have surely strengthened the tactical position of many employers. To a great extent, an employer may sit back and see whether the claimant will indeed issue a claim and actually “put his money where his mouth is”.

Recoverability of costs

However, what this approach fails to acknowledge is the

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

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Firm promotes senior associate and team leader as wills, trusts and probate team expands

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Manchester real estate finance practice welcomes legal director

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
From cat fouling to Part 36 brinkmanship, the latest 'Civil way' round-up is a reminder that procedural skirmishes can have sharp teeth. NLJ columnist Stephen Gold ranges across recent decisions with his customary wit
Digital loot may feel like property, but civil law is not always convinced. In NLJ this week, Paul Schwartfeger of 36 Stone and Nadia Latti of CMS examine fraud involving platform-controlled digital assets, from ‘account takeover and asset stripping’ to ‘value laundering’
Lasting powers of attorney (LPAs) are not ‘set and forget’ documents. In this week's NLJ, Ann Stanyer of Wedlake Bell urges practitioners to review LPAs every five years and after major life changes
back-to-top-scroll