Civil courts and alternative dispute resolution

Copyright © 2024 LexisNexis

STOP PRESS: The Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024, SI 2024/1155 (ET Rules 2024) in force from 6 January 2025, replace the ET Rules 2013 set out in Schedule 1 to the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, SI 2013/1237 from that date. The Employment Tribunals (Procedure Rules) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2024, SI 2024/1156, also in force 6 January 2025, primarily amend the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, SI 2013/1237 to facilitate the coming into force of the ET Rules 2024. Presidential Guidance and Practice Directions will be amended to reflect the new rules in due course.

For a destination table showing how the ET Rules 2024 correspond to the ET Rules 2013, and incorporating notes on the changes, see Practice Note: Employment tribunal rules of procedure 2024—destination table. This subtopic will be updated in light of the ET Rules 2024 as soon as possible.

High Court and County Court employment claims

Most employment rights arise from statute and disputes relating to them are generally within the exclusive jurisdiction of the employment tribunal. This includes:

  1. •

    claims

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Existing user? Sign-in TAKE A FREE TRIAL
Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Employment News

HMCTS announces delay in new ET practice directions implementation

HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) has announced a delay in the implementation of new Practice Directions for Employment Tribunals (ET) in England, Wales, and Scotland. In an email circulated to national user group members, HMCTS advised that the Practice Directions, originally scheduled to coincide with the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2025 on 6 January 2025, are now expected later in January 2025. The directions will introduce changes to the presentation of claims, responses, and statutory appeals, including restrictions on email submissions of ET3 response forms.

Lawyers warn skeletal zero-hours contract ban may backfire

Law360: A proposed reform to crack down on exploitative zero-hours contracts is so vaguely drafted that it is unworkable and risks backfiring on its aim to provide more stability for workers, lawyers and industry groups say.

ET Presidents explain how to approach existing Practice Directions and Presidential Guidance in light of new ET procedure rules

Employment analysis: Judge Barry Clarke, the President for the Employment Tribunals (England and Wales), and Judge Susan Walker, the President for the Employment Tribunals (Scotland), have published a joint letter, dated 18 December 2024, concerning the interaction between the current Practice Directions and Presidential Guidance documents and the new Employment Tribunal Rules 2024, which take effect on 6 January 2025.

Employment weekly highlights—19 December 2024

This edition of Employment weekly highlights includes: (1) a round-up of the key employment law developments in 2024 and what to look out for in 2025, (2) a joint letter from the Presidents of the Employment Tribunals for England & Wales and Scotland on how to approach existing Practice Directions and Presidential Guidance in light of the new procedure rules, (3) two Court of Appeal decisions on the extension of employment tribunal time limits, (4) an EAT decision examining the interplay between regulations 4(7), 4(8) and 4(9) of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (TUPE 2006), (5) a Court of Appeal ruling that claims that migrant workers were abused in Dyson’s Malaysian factories should be heard in Britain, (6) the IRLR Highlights for January 2025, (7) dates for your diary, and (8) other news items of interest to employment practitioners.

View Employment by content type :  
News
Practice notes
Precedents
Q&As

Popular documents

A mistake may justify extension of time even if claim originally rejected for that mistake (The Sports PR

Employment analysis: A claimant’s mistake, if reasonably made, can justify an extension of a time limit on the basis of it being not reasonably practicable to have presented the claim in time. That is the case even if the claim was initially rejected by an employment tribunal under ET Rule 12 for

Party can obtain an order for legal costs or preparation time but not both (News, 13 October 2015)

Under Rule 75(3) of the ET Rules 2013 a costs order relating to legal representation and a preparation order may not both be made in favour of the same party in the same proceedings. Where an employment tribunal is faced with applications for both, eg if the applicant was initially legally

Making changes or additions to the claim or response: employment tribunals

Making changes or additions to the claim or response: employment tribunalsFor a variety of reasons, a claimant or respondent may wish or need to:•make amendments to the contents of their ET1 claim form or ET3 response form after the initial lodging of the original version of the document with the

Application—additional information (further and better particulars)

Application—additional information (further and better particulars)[Insert date][Insert] Employment Tribunal[Insert address]To the [insert] Employment Tribunal[Insert name of case, eg X v Y]Claim Number: [insert claim number]Application for an order for the [Claimant OR Respondent] to provide
A mistake may justify extension of time even if claim originally rejected for that mistake (The Sports PR

A mistake may justify extension of time even if claim originally rejected for that mistake (The Sports PR

Employment analysis: A claimant’s mistake, if reasonably made, can justify an extension of a time limit on the basis of it being not reasonably practicable to have presented the claim in time. That is the case even if the claim was initially rejected by an employment tribunal under ET Rule 12 for

Party can obtain an order for legal costs or preparation time but not both (News, 13 October 2015)

Party can obtain an order for legal costs or preparation time but not both (News, 13 October 2015)

Under Rule 75(3) of the ET Rules 2013 a costs order relating to legal representation and a preparation order may not both be made in favour of the same party in the same proceedings. Where an employment tribunal is faced with applications for both, eg if the applicant was initially legally

Making changes or additions to the claim or response: employment tribunals

Making changes or additions to the claim or response: employment tribunals

Making changes or additions to the claim or response: employment tribunalsFor a variety of reasons, a claimant or respondent may wish or need to:•make amendments to the contents of their ET1 claim form or ET3 response form after the initial lodging of the original version of the document with the

Application—additional information (further and better particulars)

Application—additional information (further and better particulars)

Application—additional information (further and better particulars)[Insert date][Insert] Employment Tribunal[Insert address]To the [insert] Employment Tribunal[Insert name of case, eg X v Y]Claim Number: [insert claim number]Application for an order for the [Claimant OR Respondent] to provide