Employment Tribunals and the Lone Claimant: The Hidden Rules of Engagement

Why I’m Writing This

As many of you know I have worked in this pocket of law for sometime now, I have watched Employment Tribunal cases implode—not because the claims lacked merit, but because the system overwhelmed people who tried to run their own litigation.  Fees came and went; rules changed; remote hearings arrived.  Yet the same patterns kept repeating: procedural ambushes, last-minute funding withdrawals, and victorious claimants left chasing unpaid awards.

This article distils that front-line experience.  It is aimed at anyone contemplating an ET claim—especially those who may end up self-represented.  Knowing the traps in advance will not eliminate the imbalance, but it can stop you falling into holes that have swallowed so many before you.

1 · The Rule-Change Rollercoaster, 2013-24

A decade of reform was supposed to make Britain’s Employment Tribunals (ETs) quicker, clearer and cheaper.  For self-represented workers—known in legal shorthand as Litigants-in-Person (LiPs)—the journey can still feel like navigating a minefield.

These procedural hurdles land hardest on claimants who lose formal backing mid-stream.  Few examples illustrate the human cost better than police officers: they begin their journey with Federation lawyers, only to discover—often on the eve of the hearing—that the safety net has gone.  This funding cliff-edge sets the stage for Section 2, where we examine how and why officers slide into self-representation.

2 · Why Police Officers Often Slide from Federation Funding to Self-Representation

• Conditional support – Federation guidelines say funding is reviewed throughout and withdrawn if prospects dip below 51 % or a “reasonable” offer is declined.
• Budget pressure – The 2023 police-pension litigation left a sizeable hole in Federation finances; late-2024 press reports highlight delayed counsel payments and “cash-flow management.”
• Strategic divergence – Officers may chase vindication, while Federation lawyers favour early settlement.  Refusing a mid-range deal can trigger funding withdrawal.
• Timing – Reviews typically occur after disclosure or a merits conference—often weeks before trial, leaving the officer scrambling to prepare bundles and cross-examination alone.

3 · Why the Chief Constable Keeps the City Firm

• Public-purse mandate – Forces defend claims from the Police Fund (s 46 Police Act 1996), classed as operational spend.
• Risk management – Discrimination or whistle-blowing rulings can create precedent and reputational damage, justifying top-tier counsel.
• Insurance excess – Many forces carry indemnity cover that insists on panel solicitors.
• No mirror fund for claimants – Outside the Federation, officers have no legal-aid route and most no-win-no-fee firms shun fact-heavy, document-rich ET work.

4 · Burden of Proof & Tactical Asymmetry

Under s 136 Equality Act 2010 (and s 98 ERA 1996 for unfair dismissal) a claimant must first establish enough primary facts to shift the burden.  Respondents exploit four advantages:

1. Just poke holes – Defence need only undermine the claimant’s narrative, not prove an alternative.
2. Document control – HR files, emails, CCTV: the employer decides what drips out in disclosure.
3. Psychological edge – A KC grilling a lone claimant for hours dents credibility and eats up the claimant’s allocated hearing time.
4. Procedural mastery – Seasoned advocates navigate objections and costs warnings with ease; LiPs learn on the job.

5 · The Dangers of the “Everything” Bundle

1. Judicial irritation – A 700-page bundle screams disorganisation.
2. Missed hooks – Key emails drown in tab 42 of bundle 4.
3. Cross-examination trip-wires – Defence counsel cherry-picks obscure pages to show inconsistencies the claimant forgot existed.
4. Timing penalties – Many orders cap bundle size; breach them and you risk costs or adjournment.

Less truly is more.

6 · What Makes a Persuasive Claimant Witness?

7 · Winning Isn’t the End: Post-Judgment Manoeuvres

Bottom Line

Procedural tweaks have not levelled the playing field.  But understanding the rules—and anticipating the respondent’s next chess move—gives even a lone claimant a fighting chance.

Legal Disclaimer

This article provides general information only and does not constitute legal advice.  Employment-law disputes turn on their specific facts; readers should seek independent, qualified legal counsel before taking or refraining from any action.  No author-client relationship is formed by reading or relying on this content.