There seems to be a consensus that our employment tribunals are unable to cope with the rise in claims. Much of the weight could be lifted simply by a tightened approach on compliance with directions.

Employment lawyers are familiar with tribunal orders that contain references to all kinds of heavy sanctions, but in practice they are largely ignored, leaving great uncertainty about the merits until the last moment, by which time a case will have been set down for hearing.

Settlements or withdrawals at such a late stage inevitably clog up the system, creating disproportionate legal costs, and dilute the chance for using disciplinary powers, including strike out. As cases should be listed within 26 weeks, the failure to enforce directions on a timely basis allows nuisance-type claims to continue with a cloak of respectability.

Equally, respondents need to know quickly if they are facing a losing battle. Some clients are literally agog at the degree to which the case management process is treated with disdain by some (not all, of course) claimants. By holding back details – such as proof of lost earnings – employers are often delayed in assessing whether to consider even commercial settlements.

At the more serious end of the scale, I have seen claimants lying on oath about their earning activities, while actively hiding the fact of their being in receipt of earnings.

This is with a view to securing unjustified payments and yet is often met with no more than a shrug of the shoulders.

One of the main bugbears of employers I represent is that, with such a liberal regime and the very high hurdle for any kind of costs penalty, there is no downside to this kind of misconduct. Tolerating this kind of thing gives the tribunals a bad name. If more of the speculative claims could be fairly managed out earlier in the game, there would be more room for the deserving litigants.

Gordon Turner, Partners Law, London W1