Employee rights, changing to 2 years, help.

Uncertain

SarEl wrote: »

But here's an idea - if everyone is so concerned that the current provisions to dissuade frivolous claims don't work, why not "fine" people for bringing a frivolous claim after the tribunal has decided that, and not before?

Would that not just increase the posturing and threatening behaviour adopted by many of your "learned" colleagues?

We all know how many (most?) solicitors representing employers like to make threats about costs under the current system, even when there is no prospect of the case being one of the tiny percentage where costs may be awarded against the claimant.

SarEl

Uncertain wrote: »

Would that not just increase the posturing and threatening behaviour adopted by many of your "learned" colleagues?

We all know how many (most?) solicitors representing employers like to make threats about costs under the current system, even when there is no prospect of the case being one of the tiny percentage where costs may be awarded against the claimant.

I don't see it would make any difference - they do it anyway, and the timing of when it may occur makes little difference to the threat. If someone is going to be frightened off by such a threat, rightly or wrongly, it will happen whenever the threat is carried out. Before or after. What I suggested is no different to what happens now, except that a deposit order is made before the hearing - claims for costs are rarely settled until after the case has been heard.

Personally, as I have said all along, I see no reason for change - frivolous cases can already be dealt with through existing measures. Just because a case doesn't win doesn't make it frivolous or misguided - CMD's and deposit orders do a good job of weeding out the vast majority of such cases, and the risk of costs is there always. Since this is the case, the pnly concievable reason to charge people for tribunals is to deny them access to entering a claim, because they cannot afford to. By levying such a charge at the end of the process then their risk of loss for wasting the time of the tribunal is just as real, but would only apply to those cases that actually did waste the time of the tribunal.