header-logo header-logo

06 November 2008
Issue: 7344 / Categories: Features , Tribunals , Employment
printer mail-detail

Tinkering with tribunal rules

Is the proposed change to the overriding objective an amendment too far? asks Anna Henderson

One might wonder whether this government has a mild case of obsessive compulsive disorder when it comes to employment legislation. It just can't stop tinkering: some regulations have even been amended before they come into force as well as several times after. To be fair, this is often because glaring errors were not spotted earlier. But in other cases there seems to be no sufficiently good reason. Some of the current proposed changes to tribunal rules are a case in point.

The overriding objective
In 2001 an "overriding objective" was introduced to guide tribunals in the exercise of their powers. This closely mirrored the civil court provision, requiring tribunals to deal with a case justly by, so far as practicable:
(a) ensuring that the parties are on an equal footing;
(b) saving expense;
(c) dealing with the case in ways which are proportionate to the complexity of the issues; and
(d) ensuring that it is dealt with expeditiously and fairly.

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

Haynes Boone—Jeremy Cross

Haynes Boone—Jeremy Cross

Firm strengthens global fund finance practice with London partner hire.

DWF—Stephen Webb

DWF—Stephen Webb

Partner and head of national planning team appointed

mfg Solicitors—Nick Little

mfg Solicitors—Nick Little

Corporate team expands in Birmingham with partner hire

NEWS
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
back-to-top-scroll