UK government confirms more restrictive employment tribunal postponement rules

It will make changes to the employment tribunal rules limiting the number of postponements to two per party, and requiring applications to be made at least seven days before the hearing, other than in exceptional circumstances, according to its response to a consultation on the proposals. Tribunal judges will also be required to consider costs penalties in cases where an application is made less than seven days before the hearing, according to the response.

The changes are intended to address concerns about the time that it takes to navigate the tribunal system "voiced by businesses and stakeholders", the government said in its consultation response.

"The government believes that workplace disputes are best resolved outside of the formalities of an employment tribunal," it said. "Employment tribunals can be expensive and stressful for all participants, so providing a system that encourages early resolution, and where that is not possible, provides an efficient service with acceptable outcomes, is essential."

"The government has considered the responses [to last year's consultation on the changes] and considers that the introduction of a limit to the number of postponements would be beneficial to the users of the service, by encouraging parties to think carefully about the need for a postponement, and motivating them to focus on finding a resolution to the case. We recognise that a number of respondents felt that the current powers of the employment tribunal were sufficient, but the government believes that the introduction of a specific limit would give the users of the service more confidence that the process would not be subject to repeated delays," it said.

The new rules will take effect in April and will be accompanied by "advice and guidance" for tribunal users to help them understand when a postponement application will still be appropriate.

However, employment tribunal expert Andrew Kane of Pinsent Masons, the law firm behind Out-Law.com, suggested that the rules would make very little difference in practice.

"The policy change puts an obligation on the employment judge to consider costs, but in real terms any competent representative would raise that issue in the event of a last minute postponement application by the other side in any event," he said.

"I can see this being potentially beneficial to parties in the scenario where the other party seeks to continually postpone a hearing, which does happen from time to time. This will, however, still require a robust judge to make the decision to refuse such an application, particularly from an unrepresented claimant, given the ramifications of such a decision - it is probably on a par with an employment judge making a decision to strike out a claim," he said.

The new rules will not contain any "prescriptive" definitions of the exceptional circumstances for which an employment judge should allow multiple or late postponements, to ensure that parties with "a genuine need for a postponement", as well as "vulnerable groups, such as the disabled and those with caring responsibilities" are not disadvantaged, according to the response. They will, however, exempt all cases in which the reason for the postponement is to facilitate a settlement between the parties.