header-logo header-logo

27 November 2014
Issue: 7632 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Low rate of success for discrimination claims

Just 22% of discrimination claims heard at employment tribunals are successful, compared to a 62% success rate for all other types of employment tribunal claims. According to figures gathered by GQ Employment Law, just 710 out of 3,210 discrimination cases were successful last year, compared to 18,847 successful non-discrimination cases out of a total of 30,498. However, the figures do not reveal the number of claims that were settled. Jon Gilligan, partner at GQ, says: “There is always a bit of a risk for employers in defending a discrimination case at the employment tribunal, but these figures show that employers normally win.”

Issue: 7632 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley strengthens family law team

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Construction lawyer returns to Ward Hadaway in Teesside role

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird Bird hires leading legal transformation expert

NEWS
Legal aid deserts leave almost one in four without adequate access to justice
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has warned solicitors and law firms that using artificial intelligence does not alter their professional obligations, amid concerns over inaccurate legal material and client confidentiality
From forgotten interest claims to case-management appeals, a string of procedural developments offers useful—and occasionally cautionary—lessons for practitioners

Jonathan Fisher KC highlights that it now accounts for around 40% of criminal offences, with roughly 70% involving technology, and argues that the UK cannot simply prosecute its way out of the problem. Detection, investigation and prosecution all require improvement, while different fraud types demand tailored responses.

How forcefully can a litigant criticise a public authority before robust advocacy crosses the line into unreasonable conduct? 
back-to-top-scroll