‘Since the government introduced fees for employment tribunals, together with legal aid cuts, disabled people have increasingly been unable to have their cases heard.’
The Guardian, 6th January 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘PC Nadeem Saddique, who guarded Tony Blair and royal family members, wins employment tribunal after complaining to his inspector in 2011 over incidents.’
The Guardian, 25th November 2015
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘The father of three sisters who brought employment claims against an award-winning chef has said tribunal fees could put people off filing a dispute.’
BBC News, 9th November 2015
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘A gay clergyman prevented from taking up a post as a hospital chaplain was not discriminated against, an employment tribunal panel has ruled.’
BBC News, 4th November 2015
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘A solicitor who deceived his firm and his clients for 13 months into thinking that he was pursuing their group employment tribunal (ET) claims, when in fact they had been struck out because of his inactivity, has been removed from the profession.’
Legal Futures, 14th October 2015
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘In Ramphal v Department for Transport, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) provided clear guidance on the extent of the role that human resources (HR) departments may legitimately perform during a disciplinary procedure.’
Littleton Chambers, 7th October 2015
Source: www.littletonchambers.com
‘In 2013 radical changes were introduced to the Employment Tribunal system, which, since its inception in the 1970s, had enabled employees to bring their disputes before a legally qualified Chairman free of charge. Since 2013 legal costs have been incurred automatically upon issuing proceedings. Before issuing proceedings the parties have an opportunity to reach a settlement via the ACAS early conciliation process. But there may be little incentive for an employer to engage in a conciliated settlement, where the employee is unlikely to be able to afford the tribunal fees.’
Halsbury’s Law Exchange, 18th September 2015
Source: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk
‘The UK employment tribunal system is in need of “radical” restructuring if it is to work fairly and efficiently for employees, employers and the broader administration of justice, according to the Law Society of England and Wales.’
OUT-LAW.com, 14th September 2015
Source: www.out-law.com
‘The Employment Tribunal and the Employment Appeal Tribunal Fees Order 2013 whereby fees were payable by a claimant or appellant on the commencement of a claim or an appeal and also in advance of the final hearing unless they were entitled to a remission on account of limited means was lawful and not discriminatory.’
WLR Daily, 26th August 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Radical changes to the employment tribunal structure are needed to ensure unlawful workplace practices do not go unpunished, the Law Society has said.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 7th September 2015
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘The job of a telecoms engineer on long-term sick leave with little prospect of returning to work did not transfer to a new employer as he was not “assigned” to the team when the team he worked as a part of was transferred to another service provider, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has confirmed.’
OUT-LAW.com, 7th September 2015
Source: www.out-law.com
‘UNISON’s case against the government’s introduction of employment tribunal fees could be heading for the UK’s highest court after the Court of Appeal rejected the union’s legal challenge to the policy.’
OUT-LAW.com, 28th August 2015
Source: www.out-law.com
‘A clergyman who wed his partner in a same-sex marriage may have to wait until next year to find out whether a decision by the church to remove his right to officiate was discriminatory.’
The Guardian, 1st September 2015
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘Unison has applied for permission to take its legal challenge to the Government’s introduction of employment tribunal fees to the Supreme Court, after the Court of Appeal this week rejected the union’s claims.’
Local Government Lawyer, 27th August 2015
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘Kiani v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWCA Civ 776 (21 July 2015). In my last post on UKHRB I commented on developments in UK, ECHR and EU jurisprudence relating to procedural fairness in the context of national security.
The developments in this recent case offer some further interesting thoughts on the topic.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 6th August 2015
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘Gillingham and their chairman, Paul Scally, have each been fined £75,000 for “race victimisation” relating to the departure of the striker Mark McCammon in 2011.’
The Guardian, 31st July 2015
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘A retired Asian officer who fought racism in the police has been cleared of sexually assaulting a prisoner almost 30 years ago after claiming the charges against him were part of a vendetta by Scotland Yard.’
The Guardian, 31st July 2015
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘Former Diplomatic Protection Group officer tells tribunal his police officer wife was granted a career break but he wasn’t.’
Daily Telegraph, 29th July 2015
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
Kiani v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWCA Civ 776; [2015] WLR (D) 325
‘The requirements of the right to a fair trial in article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms depended on the context and all the circumstances of the case. In a security case an individual was not entitled to full article 6 rights if to accord him such rights would jeopardise the efficacy of the vetting regime itself. The same approach was taken under European Union law.’
WLR Daily, 21st July 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The ET has the power to order that the identity of individuals named in proceedings be permanently anonymised in any judgment. This power has been expressly embodied in rule 50(3)(b) of the Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013, although before this rule came into force a similar power already existed, to safeguard an individual’s rights under the European Convention of Human Rights: see F v G [2012] ICR 246.’
Littleton Chambers, 23rd July 2015
Source: www.littletonchambers.com
© Inner Temple Library 2025