header-logo header-logo

14 May 2020 / Stephen Levinson
Issue: 7886 / Categories: Opinion , Employment
printer mail-detail

They’ve got it!

20710
Stephen Levinson welcomes the Law Commission’s (excellent) report on Employment Law Hearing Structures

It is a pleasure to welcome this report. Dry though the subject matter may seem it deals with issues of real practical importance. The Law Commission has not previously reported on employment law. Generally, they avoid anything politically controversial so most of the substantive law is out of bounds. This report deals with the jurisdiction of tribunals, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT), and the civil courts in employment matters. It does not review the current discussions about the possible restructuring of the employment law system. What it does is discuss all of the possible changes to the structure (‘Employment Law Hearing Structures: Report’, (Law Com No 390), April 2020, https://go.aws/3csG42K).

The first thing to welcome is that the Commission clearly understand the unique ethos and role of the employment tribunal, declare what it is, and make clear they wish it preserved. This distinguishes them from all governments over the last twenty years which have shown no such understanding.

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