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.
Written by John Barwell
Written by John Barwell
Written by John Barwell
A Legal Lens article on ET3 responses, procedural fairness and why a bare denial may not define the dispute.
Written by John Barwell
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.
Written by John Barwell
Employment Tribunals are under pressure. Legal Lens explains why the backlog is a route-design problem, not just a delay problem.
Written by John Barwell
A list of issues is not administrative decoration. It is the point where the pleaded case is translated into the questions the Tribunal is being asked to decide.
Written by John Barwell
A practical guide to Employment Tribunal reconsideration, why it is not a second hearing or appeal, and when fairness may require a judgment to be revisited.
Written by John Barwell
Whistleblowing · COT3 settlements · Early-years safeguarding The EAT decision in Mrs A Darlington v London Borough of Islington is an orthodox application of COT3 construction principles. Its wider significance lies in the gap it exposes: Parliament has created a sectoral recruitment-stage whistleblowing shield for NHS applicants, but not for workers in regulated early-years settings. … Continue reading “Darlington v Islington: COT3 settlements and whistleblowing protection gaps”
Written by John Barwell
The ET3 response is not ordinary correspondence. This article explains why a late, defective, rejected or missing response can trigger Rule 22 risks, restrict respondent participation, and require a properly evidenced extension application.
Written by John Barwell
Amending an ET1 is not a guaranteed second chance. This article explains when a proposed change is likely to be treated as clarification, relabelling, a new claim, or a risky late amendment — and why limitation, prejudice, Rule 35 and Acas can matter.
Written by John Barwell
ET1 drafting · rejected claims · Rule 14 Sending an ET1 before the deadline is not always enough. If the claim is defective, correctly rejected and only later rectified, Rule 14 may move the treated presentation date to the date the rectifying application was received. Category Tactical guidance note Jurisdiction Great Britain Reading time c. … Continue reading “Wrong ET1? Rejected Claim? The Rule 14 Deadline Trap Claimants Miss”