The EAT overturned the strike-out of race discrimination complaints in Waithaka v Barclays. The judgment explains why different managers, incidents and forms of treatment may still form part of one continuing state of affairs for Equality Act time-limit purposes.
Employment Tribunal conduct may be disruptive in effect while mental impairment remains relevant to its cause. This article examines evidence, non-attendance, costs, unless orders, strike-out and fairness to both parties.
Employment Tribunals have broad powers to support vulnerable parties. But an impaired litigant in person may struggle to identify the barrier, explain its functional effect and provide the evidence needed for a proportionate adjustment.
Employment Tribunal proceedings do not inevitably cause mental illness. But for a litigant in person, self-representation can add anxiety, cognitive load and procedural pressure to an already damaging workplace dispute.
Outcome is not explanation. Reasons matter because they make decisions intelligible, accountable and capable of proper scrutiny.
The first battle in an Employment Tribunal claim may be procedural. The ET1, grounds of claim and particulars can decide whether the case is clear enough to survive early pressure.
A Legal Lens article on ET3 responses, procedural fairness and why a bare denial may not define the dispute.
The ET1 is more than an Employment Tribunal claim form. It is the first point where a workplace story becomes a case, shaping the issues, respondent response, evidence, amendment risk and access to justice.
Employment Tribunals are under pressure. Legal Lens explains why the backlog is a route-design problem, not just a delay problem.
Sending is communication. Service is a legal act. This Legal Lens article explains why emailing a civil claim form can fail if the rules on service, solicitor authority, email consent, nominated addresses, sealed documents and timing are not followed.
