Tribunal delays spark calls for reform of workplace dispute resolution

Tribunal delays and the case for reform

"As the saying goes, justice delayed is justice denied. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the Employment Tribunal system, where cases are now being heard two, three or even five years after they are first submitted. Unfortunately, the problem is only set to get worse. Under the Employment Rights Act, compensation caps are due to be removed in January 2027 and the qualifying period for unfair dismissal claims will be cut from two years to six months.

"The system is under severe strain. Years of underinvestment, too few judges and the rise of AI-generated claims have all added pressure. Claimants are now regularly filing lengthy claims covering every possible allegation. With a system close to breaking point, cases risk being abandoned or struck out because witnesses are no longer available, memories have faded and a fair hearing may no longer be deemed possible.

"As practitioners in employment law become increasingly frustrated by the lengthy delays in the Tribunals, the Employment Lawyers Association (ELA) has made a number of wide ranging suggestions to assist in speeding up the tribunal processes and to assist employment dispute resolution. Many of the reforms suggested as part of the ELA review are certainly a step in the right direction.

"Most employment lawyers would like to see a stronger early sift to remove hopeless claims, firmer case management, costs consequences in complex cases where appropriate, greater use of video hearings, and better use of judicial capacity across the UK, rather than allowing London and the South East to bear the brunt of the backlog.

Improving early resolution and the role of Acas

"ELA’s suggestion to amend the Acas Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures with a view to encouraging informal resolution is a positive one. In theory, this could allow for simple complaints to be defused early and avoid unnecessary escalation. It would also certainly encourage businesses to not treat such processes as a mere tick box exercise. I would also suggest there should be bigger percentage uplifts and decreases in compensation levels where it can be demonstrated either party has not tried to resolve issues informally.

"Whilst I agree with the need to implement changes in the early conciliation process, I do not agree with replacing Acas entirely and creating a new body, the Employment Resolution Service. Why not use what we already have? The cost and delay in setting up a body would be better spent on improving the resources in the tribunal system itself which has always been the Cinderella of the civil justice systems.

"Acas conciliators could be appropriately trained to triage cases and carry out phone conciliation and mediation. They could also be given more powers to weed out the hopeless cases or defences or opine on them, such that if one proceeds with a case or defence you have been warned is without merit there are severe costs consequences from a much earlier stage than say a deposit order after a preliminary hearing when either party is more invested in the case due to the time and money spent so far.

Managing complex claims and unrealistic demands

"Rewriting ET1 and ET3 forms is also, in theory, a positive change. With the increasing use of ChatGPT and other AI systems, we are seeing litigants in person presenting extremely complex claims over 100 pages long, so something needs to be done, and word limits may be the resolution. AI can be used to assist the Claimant set out correctly based on their actual income schedule of losses, rather than at the moment as I am experiencing unrealistic demands of £25 million from someone who earns less than £30,000.

"Cost consequences for complex claims may also discourage some litigants in person from presenting unnecessarily detailed claims and making unrealistic demands and encourage some individuals to take a more realistic approach to the value of their claims. However, it may serve to discourage individuals with strong claims from claiming more than two years’ earnings for the fear of cost consequences.

"In practice, we all know something needs to be done as the delays will only increase. Without meaningful reform, the backlog will only deepen and confidence in the Tribunal system will continue to erode. It would appear though there is no appetite within this current government to reintroduce mandatory fees for issuing claims – which when last introduced led to the number of claims falling dramatically."

An extract of Susan’s comments was published in Law360, 29 May 2026.