header-logo header-logo

22 July 2016 / Paul McFarlane , Joanne Owers
Issue: 7708 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail

All for one and…

nlj_7708_owers_mcfarlane-

Joanne Owers & Paul McFarlane on the spectre of a single employment court

  • Why is a single employment court being discussed?
  • ELA’s proposals—three-tier system.
  • Technology, access to justice and lessons from other jurisdictions.

Statutory employment protection claims have been heard in the Employment Tribunal (formerly the Industrial Tribunal) since the 1970s. A protocol was agreed in the mid 2000s (2005/2006) under which the Employment Tribunal’s Service “retains a separate identity within the overall Tribunal Service, forming a distinct pillar within the organisation”. Much has changed since the 1970s in terms of the depth and breadth of statutory employment protection laws but at least until the advent of Employment Tribunal fees in 2013 and the widely welcomed new Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure of the same year, very little had changed in the way in which Employment Tribunals operated or the cases they heard.

In recent times however momentum appears to be gathering both from the legislature and judiciary to reform Employment Tribunals and move them from their “separate pillar” into the civil

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

Bellevue Law—Lianne Craig

Bellevue Law—Lianne Craig

Workplace law firm expands commercial disputes team with senior consultant hire

EIP—Rob Barker

EIP—Rob Barker

IP firm promotes patent attorney to partner

Muckle LLP—Ryan Butler

Muckle LLP—Ryan Butler

Banking and restructuring team bolstered by insolvency specialist

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll