News Room

What happens at an employment tribunal

Posted by Stripes on November 23, 2009 (Blog, Employment)

gavelDisputes between employer and employee are usually dealt with by an Employment Tribunal (ET).

The case is decided by the ET at a public hearing (unless an application for a closed hearing due to matters confidential has been granted) and is heard by an ET judge and two lay members. The judge is a solicitor or a barrister and the lay members each represent management and trade unions respectively.

You do not need to be legally represented, although nowadays the complexity of employment law is such that most employers instruct solicitors as soon as they receive the claim, if not before. (more…)


What is workplace bullying?

Posted by Stripes on November 23, 2009 (Blog, Employment)

workplace_bullyingBullying can involve arguments and rudeness but it can also be much more subtle – excluding and ignoring people and their contribution, unacceptable criticisms and even overloading people with work are forms of bullying.

Bullying may be characterised as offensive, intimidating, malicious or insulting behaviour, an abuse or misuse of power through means intended to undermine, humiliate, denigrate or injure the recipient.

Bullying or harassment may be by an individual against an individual (perhaps by someone in a position of authority such as a manager or supervisor) or involve groups of people. It may be obvious or it may be insidious. Whatever form it takes, it is unwarranted and unwelcome to the individual. (more…)


Without prejudice: What it is, and when you should use it

Posted by Stripes on November 23, 2009 (Blog, Litigation)

What is without prejudice?
Despite being in use in British courts for more than a 100 years, the ‘without prejudice’ rule is well known but not necessarily well understood.
Opinions and case law on it have changed, so perhaps this is not surprising. However, it is worth knowing the logic and the basics behind the rule.
The chief goal is to encourage parties in dispute to settle out of court — the idea being that one party can make concessions safe in the knowledge that they cannot be relied on as evidence by the other side should the dispute end up in court.
Which concessions are protected depends on a number of things but the overall legal requirement is that there must be a dispute and the without prejudice communication (which can be anything from written and oral negotiation to e-mails) must be genuinely related to settling the dispute.
To ascertain what constitutes a dispute, ask if the case would be likely to have progressed to litigation if agreement was not reached? It is by no means essential that litigation has started, or even been considered, for without prejudice to apply. There have been cases where communications predating litigation by more than two years have been afforded without prejudice protection.
Whether or not the communication genuinely relates to the settlement of a dispute and so falls within the scope of the rule is more complex. An objective review of the case will determine the intention of the author and how the communication would be understood by a reasonable recipient.
Simply labelling a document or communication ‘without prejudice’ does not of itself attract the legal privilege. Conversely, a communication can attract without prejudice privilege despite not having been labelled as such.
Despite its wide scope, the without prejudice rule is not absolute and even communications made in an attempt to settle a dispute may be admissible if the case requires it. For example, the court may look at without prejudice communications if one party says a settlement agreement has been reached and the other party disagrees. Similarly, if there is a claim that an agreement has been compromised by fraud or other deception, the without prejudice rule may be overturned. The rule may not apply when assessing legal costs after litigation and there is a risk that it does not apply to all admissions of fact.
There is also the right to waive without prejudice privilege but the parties must be in agreement.
While invoking the rule can help to reduce time and money spent taking cases through the courts, anyone seeking to rely on it should be aware that a careful approach is essential.

Despite being in use in British courts for more than a 100 years, the ‘without prejudice’ rule is well known but not necessarily well understood.

Opinions and case law on it have changed, so perhaps this is not surprising. However, it is worth knowing the logic and the basics behind the rule. (more…)