Will tribunal delays affect my case?

The situation has been escalating for a while, with the backlog gradually growing. New claims are being made faster than existing cases are being resolved. The average number of single claims received each quarter increased 60% between 2022 and 2026. There are now 58,000 outstanding claims – up from 33,000 in 2023-2024. 

 

And the Employment Rights Act 2025 has the potential to make the matter worse by extending rights and increasing the time limit for making a tribunal claim. It is estimated that this could increase claims by 15-20%. 

 

These delays can have a huge financial and emotional impact. They also cause practical problems, such as memories fading or key witnesses leaving the workplace. Although neither party (or their legal representatives) can change the backlog in the tribunal, you can help reduce the impact of the delays in your case. 

 

 

The simplest solution is to try and avoid the tribunal system if possible. Ideally, this would mean addressing issues before they escalate into disputes. This will come down to your workplace policies and culture. Employers should make it easy for employees to speak up early on, trusting that managers will be supportive and aim to resolve the problem. 

 

Even once the issue has become a full-blown dispute, it is possible to settle outside of the tribunal. At any point, the parties may agree to end the claim. Your solicitor can help you to negotiate a settlement, put forward offers and assess whether offers you receive are reasonable. Your solicitor can also help you to understand the potential cost of continuing the claim, so that you can weigh this against settlement offers. 

 

Of course, this depends on both sides being open to co-operate and compromise. You can be as reasonable as possible, but if the other side isn’t willing to engage, it is out of your control. Don’t put all your eggs in one basket – you should still meet deadlines for your claim or response. Settlement discussions can continue alongside the tribunal process, keeping both options open. 

 

 

In legal disputes, it is true that time is money. The longer a case drags on, the more it costs in legal fees, expenses and business resources. This is even more true for complex cases which may need multiple hearings, or final hearings taking weeks. 

 

Employers and individuals can mitigate the cost with legal expenses insurance (LEI). Depending on your policy, your insurer may pay some or all your legal fees if it believes you have a good case. LEI can be a standalone policy or part of another policy. 

 

If you’re taking out a policy because you already have an issue, check whether the policy covers ongoing issues and when an issue is considered to begin (for example, at the time of the first incident, when a grievance is raised, or when an application is made to ACAS). 

 

Insurance Business UK has raised concerns that many SMEs are ‘under-insured’ for management and employment issues. Part of the issue is that SMEs often only take out insurance that is compulsory (legally or contractually) rather than more comprehensive packages. With the number of claims increasing, this could be a costly oversight. 

 

 

As time goes on, there’s a risk that everybody’s memory will fade. Detailed records can help to jog memories. Records should set out decisions made, processes followed, and the reasons why. 

 

Make it standard practice for managers to keep comprehensive records. It’s not always possible to predict disputes, and if you wait until an issue has begun to start keeping records, you have already missed the start of the problem. 

 

Employees should also consider keeping records such as diary entries, medical records and financial information. 

 

 

The longer a case lasts, the more likely it is that key staff will move on before the matter is resolved. If the manager who made the decision is no longer working for you, how can you explain the decision to the tribunal? 

 

Again, comprehensive records can go some way to fill in the gaps. 

 

Businesses might also consider contract terms that require staff to engage with any relevant litigation after they have left the company. These terms could be included as standard in employment contracts for senior staff, or in settlement agreements when an employee leaves. 

 

However, you can’t compel staff to be supportive of the organisation during their involvement. Even if they are required to attend hearings, they must still be honest about the facts. 

 

 

The president of the Employment Tribunals for England and Wales has suggested that AI is contributing to delays. AI often drafts lengthy and complex claims, defences and appeals, sometimes including legal arguments that aren’t relevant to the facts of the case. AI is also likely to inflate schedules of loss, creating unreasonable expectations which make it difficult to reach a settlement. 

 

This may be due to a lack of context, one-sided prompts, and a bias towards telling the user what they want to hear. Most use of AI in tribunals is by litigants-in-person, who don’t have a solicitor to provide a reasonable balance in the early stages of the claim. Instead, these issues fall to the tribunal to resolve, often in pre-hearings. 

 

When cases need more tribunal time, it usually means a longer wait for a suitable gap in the tribunal’s schedule. 

 

Legal expenses insurance can help fund advice from a solicitor rather than AI. Otherwise, it is better to get information from verified sources such as ACAS and Citizens Advice and then write your case as a human, only including relevant information. If you aren’t confident writing, you should limit your use of AI to checking spelling, structure and tone, not legal information. This is likely to produce a better claim than AI, putting you in a stronger position. 

 

 

Get in touch if you think you think we can help you with a claim.