1.5 - Tribunals Flashcards
Tribunals History
Introduction
* Specialist courts date back to the birth of the welfare state
* Administrative, domestic and employment
Describe the tier system
Tribunal Service:
◦ Two tiers – First Tier (deals with first hearings) and Upper Tier (deals with appeals from the First Tier).
◦ Possible appeal to Court of Appeal (Civil Division) from Upper Tier but this is very rare.
◦ Tiers grouped into Chambers according to the type of case they deal with
Who appoints tribunal members and judges?
- Tribunal members and Judges are appointed by the Judicial Appointments Commission
Who makes up the members of a tribunal.
- Composition – Tribunal Judge and lay members who have expertise in the area.
Who overseas the Tribunal Service?
- Tribunals are overseen by Her Majesty’s Court and Tribunal Service.
Who is responsible for the administration of the tribunal service?
- Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council is responsible for the administration of tribunals.
Key Reports / Timeline of Tribunal Reforms
1957 Franks Committee recommended that tribunal procedures should be an example of “openness, fairness and impartiality”. The recommendations were implemented in the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1958.
The 1958 Council on Tribunals was set up to supervise and review tribunal procedures. The Council was a body that would
deal with complaints and submit recommendations for improvement. However, it was regarded as a “watchdog with no teeth”
meaning it had very little power to make changes.
2000 Sir Andrew Leggatt: “Tribunals for Users - One System, One Service” – this report marked a radical reform of the tribunal
system, since Leggatt reported that tribunals lacked independence, coherence and were not user friendly.
Leggatt recommendations: 1. Single Tribunal Service.
A single tribunal service to be responsible
for the administration of all tribunals.
* Tribunal service is independent of its relevant government department.
* The support is unified both in procedure and administration.
Leggatt recommendations: 2. Organised into divisions
Tribunals should be organised into
divisions grouping together similar
tribunals.
* Chambers have clear areas of specialism e.g., Social Entitlement, Tax.
* Each Chamber is headed by a Registrar who takes on case management
duties in line with the Civil Procedure Rules.
Leggatt recommendations: 3. User Friendly
The system should be user friendly. * Users are encouraged to bring their own cases without legal representation.
* Written judgments should be given in Plain English.
* Information about procedures, venues etc. should be made freely available.
* There is a single route of appeal.
Leggatt recommendations: 4. Single Route of Appeal
Single route of appeal. * With each Division having a corresponding Appeal Tribunal, only then will
there be a redress to the Court of Appeal.
Which Act formalised and implemented most of Leggatt’s reforms?
2007 Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act
This was the Act that formalised and implemented most of Leggatt’s Reforms and contributed to the most radical shake up of
the Tribunal system seen for many years.
Advantages
Cost
Parties are encouraged to take their own cases without the need for representation. This has been made even easier with the availability of application forms online and a more transparent Tribunal Service since
the reforms.
Expertise
At least one member of the Tribunal will be an expert in the relevant field,
so this will save time explaining complex technicalities to a judge in court.
Independence
Because of the involvement of the Judicial Appointments Commission in appointing tribunal judges, the tribunal system is much more transparent, independent and thus fair. Further, the unified set of procedures and
rules minimises the risk of inconsistencies between tribunals.
Speed
There is a duty on the tribunal judges to take on case management duties, so they are able to impose strict timetables to ensure that most cases can be heard within one day.
Informality
It is much less formal than a court hearing, though they are more formal than other methods of ADR. The parties benefit from a private hearing and have the chance to maintain a relationship after the case is over.
Disadvantages
Delay
If the case is one of a complex nature, then there can be a delay in getting the case heard.
Lack of Precedent
Tribunals do not operate a strict system of precedent, so there is sometimes an element of unpredictability to the outcomes of cases.
Lack of Funding
Funding is not always available, which can be detrimental to a person taking on a big company who has the benefit of the most expensive representation. (Fees in employment tribunals have now been removed).
Intimidated Parties
There is still the problem of parties feeling intimidated and daunted at the prospect of taking a case to “court”, particularly without the comfort of having a legal representative.
