Only One in 10 Employment Tribunal Claims Against Law Firms Win in Court
An analysis of a UK employment tribunal database shows only 10% of claims win.
November 08, 2019 at 07:46 AM
5 minute read
Only one in 10 claims brought against law firms at U.K. employment tribunals are successful in court, according Legal Week research that demonstrates the widespread use of compromise agreements.
A total of 24 law firms have faced 85 claims, brought by 32 individuals, at employment tribunals across the U.K. since February 2017, a U.K. employment tribunal database shows. Another six claims brought by a single individual are ongoing.
Only nine of those claims, brought by three individuals against different law firms, were successful. Only one of those claimants won their entire case, which comprised four claims, while the other two only won partially.
More than 60% of claims – 56 claims brought by 21 claimants – were "dismissed on withdrawal" from the claimant, which usually means a settlement agreement has been reached between both parties, according to employment partners.
Eighteen claims were dismissed by employment tribunal judges for various reasons, including: time restrictions, jurisdiction, and lack of prospect of success.
Merrill April, employment partner at CM Murray, said: "It's not surprising to me that a large number of claims are settled. I think one of the reasons for that is the fact that lawyers have a strong desire to continue their careers, and it's quite difficult to carry on with it when there's a litigation pending.
"Many of them think a settlement is just as satisfying because it's more private, it's cheaper and less stressful, and they feel justice has been done because they've been heard.
"Employers often want to settle because, having heard the full story, they think there was something they could have done better, or they stand their ground but don't want to use time and resources to fight claims.
"Only a small proportion of cases go the whole way – part of the problem is that the tribunal system is swamped. The under-resourcing of the tribunal causes a long delay factor that may contribute to promoting settlements."
Firms that faced claims included: Linklaters, Norton Rose Fulbright, DLA Piper, legacy Bryan Cave, Ropes & Gray, Irwin Mitchell, DWF, Paul Hastings, Clyde & Co, Gateley, Gowling WLG, DAC Beachcroft, Addleshaw Goddard, Akin Gump, Simmons & Simmons, Hill Dickinson, Mills & Reeve, Jones Day, Dentons, Womble Bond Dickinson, SJ Berwin in administration, Kennedys Law, Shoosmiths, and Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison.
The two categories incurring the most claims were unfair dismissal and sex discrimination, with a total of 17 and 13 claims respectively.
In September, Legal Week revealed which law firms appeared to have settled sex discrimination claims brought to employment tribunals.
Other common types of claim included: breach of contract (nine claims), disability discrimination (eight claims), race discrimination and maternity and pregnancy rights (six claims), and public interest disclosure (five claims). No sexual orientation discrimination claims were brought against any law firm.
Jones Day, Paul, Weiss, Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner, Irwin Mitchell, Norton Rose Fulbright and DLA Piper did not respond to requests for comment. All other firms declined to comment.
Of the cases that made it to court, most were dismissed by the judge.
The use of compromise agreements with non-disclosure terms is one way for employers to avoid an employee reporting them to a regulator or taking them to the employment tribunal.
In a report published in June, a House of Commons committee criticised the use of non-disclosure agreements (NDA) and settlement payments by employers facing claims, stating they "prevent the employee from speaking about the alleged behaviour – even unlawful behaviour – without those allegations ever being investigated and without any sanctions for perpetrators".
In March last year, the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) stipulated in a warning notice on the use of NDAs that their use by a lawyer or a law firm was improper if it is aimed at "preventing, or seeking to impede or deter, a person from reporting misconduct, or a serious breach of our regulatory requirements to us", or to a law enforcement agency, including the police.
The notice further states: "NDAs or other settlement terms must not stipulate, and the person expected to agree the NDA must not be given the impression, that reporting or disclosure as set out above is prohibited."
The Ministry of Justice published a quarterly employment tribunal statistics report for the months of April to June 2019. The report reveals that in that period, the Employment Tribunal received a total of 28,700 single and multiple caseload claims.
In that quarter, the report further indicates that the Employment Tribunal disposed of 9,000 claims, of which 22% were withdrawn before going to trial, 13% were dismissed in court and only 9% were successful.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllJones Day, BCLP & Other Major Firms Boost European Teams with Key Partner Hires
4 minute read$13.8 Billion Magomedov Claim Thrown Out by UK High Court
Trending Stories
- 1South Florida Attorney Charged With Aggravated Battery After Incident in Prime Rib Line
- 2'A Death Sentence for TikTok'?: Litigators and Experts Weigh Impact of Potential Ban on Creators and Data Privacy
- 3Bribery Case Against Former Lt. Gov. Brian Benjamin Is Dropped
- 4‘Extremely Disturbing’: AI Firms Face Class Action by ‘Taskers’ Exposed to Traumatic Content
- 5State Appeals Court Revives BraunHagey Lawsuit Alleging $4.2M Unlawful Wire to China
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250