Among a series of proposals aimed at improving the operation of employment tribunals and ensuring fairer outcomes to grievance claims, the Law Commission has recommended an extension to the time limit for people to bring claims to employment tribunals from the current three months to six months.
Last week, employment tribunal judges were advised to hold all hearings remotely because of coronavirus fears - a move that could form a key step in long-awaited plans to digitise the legal process, writes Richard Fox.
Updated to include information on Curless v Shell International Ltd, in which the Court of Appeal considered if email advice on avoiding a discriminatory dismissal was protected by legal privilege.
In Curless v Shell International Ltd, the Court of Appeal upheld the tribunal decision that an email that contained legal advice on how to avoid a discriminatory dismissal is protected by legal privilege because it was not advice to act in an "underhand or iniquitous way".
In L v Q Ltd, the Court of Appeal held that the principle of open justice precludes an employment tribunal from accepting a claimant's request that its judgment not be published on the public register of tribunal decisions.
In The British Council v Jeffery; Green v SIG Trading Ltd, the Court of Appeal held that whether or not an expatriate employee has sufficiently strong connections with Great Britain to come within the scope of British employment law is a question of fact, but that such an evaluation is a question of law.
In X v Y Ltd, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) held that an email containing legal advice on how to disguise a discriminatory dismissal as a redundancy is not protected by legal advice privilege and is admissible as evidence in a tribunal.
In Fleming v East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) held that covert recordings of the private deliberations of the disciplinary panel were admissible as evidence, except for any content covered by legal professional privilege.
In Hale v Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) held that the decision to instigate the disciplinary procedure was not a one-off act, but the start of a state of affairs that would continue until the conclusion of the disciplinary process.
Updated to include information on the impact on the ET1 form of Unison's successful challenge to employment tribunal fees.
HR and legal information and guidance relating to employment tribunal procedure.