header-logo header-logo

Unfair dismissal claims upheaval

05 October 2011
Issue: 7484 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Rise in qualifying period for unfair dismissal claims

The qualifying period for unfair dismissal will rise from one to two years from next April, Chancellor George Osborne has confirmed.

The government said the move, which aims to prevent vexatious or unmeritorious claims, would affect about 2,000 claimants and save employers nearly £6m a year.

Fees will be introduced for claimants bringing a claim before an employment tribunal—£250 to lodge a claim and £1,000 for a hearing, with higher fees applicable where claims were worth more than £30,000, according to unconfirmed reports. The fee would be recoverable in the event of a win, and waived for claimants with “no money”— although what this means has not been defined.

A Ministry of Justice spokesman said more details would be announced in a consultation paper due to be published next month.

Emma Satyamurti, employment solicitor at Russell, Jones & Walker, said: “The reasons given for the reforms don’t hold water—the employment tribunals already have powers to require a claimant to pay a deposit.”

Selwyn Bligh, employment partner at Pinsent Masons, said the introduction of fees would “deter people with legitimate grievances but little money from bringing a claim”.

He warned that the doubling of the qualifying period might be subject to an age discrimination challenge on the basis it indirectly discriminates against young people.

Research by Lewis Silkin estimates the number of qualifying employees under the age of 20 would be reduced from half to just one in five.

The qualifying period was raised to two years in 1980. A claim of indirect sex discrimination was brought in 2000, on the basis fewer women work continuously for two years, but it failed. In 1999, the Labour government changed the qualifying period back to a year.

Issue: 7484 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll