Report comment

A one-sided and biased view unfortunately. I have represented many employers in the Employment Tribunal. The introduction of fees got rid of the vast majority of the no hope chancer claims that the majority of employers would simply pay off as not worth the hassle and expense in term time and costs. I'm afraid I do not share the view of some commentators that the introduction of the sift would help to avoid these. The problem in fact is not so much the question of fees but of Claimants acting in person. I recently dealt with the case in which the hearing lasted for 12 days, the Claimant being unrepresented. Had he been represented the hearing will probably have taken no more than three days, and might in all probability not even have got that far. He lost, and notwithstanding the obtaining of a costs order against him (which gives a clue as to his conduct) there was no point in trying to enforce it as he had no assets.