Employment law stifling UK competitiveness, says BCC

My understanding is that respondents can seek to recover costs from claimants under current provisions. I don't agree that, because I make a vexatious etc claim now, my rights to make future claims should be affected as a matter of course and this seems to me to run completely contrary to British justice. I believe a case of a multiple claimant - who was effectively running a cottage industry in claiming discrimination - was reported recently and demonstrated that the Tribunal system is capable of dealing with frivoulous claims under the arrangemenst in existence.

Many employers defend cases which would, to most reasonable people, seem indefensible. These are the mirror image of the vexatious, frivolous claim you refer to Martin. Do you suggest that employers who defend the indefensible should have future defences thrown out by Tribunals - or that they should be forced to make the public apology you suggest unsuccessful claimants should make?

Nuisance, banter, teasing, little practical jokes like moving paperwork or sticking cheese under a seat or wetting the seat or nasty little comments followed by "only joking" and ooh don't be so sensitive in front of peers etc.etc.etc.

So, whilst there maybe some vexatious claims in the mix of those who are fit enough to claim you have to remember that only around 10% of victims claim in the first place (TUC Disposable Workers 07).

The scale of collateral damage to UK human resources has necessitated the ever increasing legislation as volntary codes of good practice remain ignored as the insidious friendly fire of omission to care becomes a generic problem.

I like the BCC's recommendation.

I propose an additional one.

A major change that would arrest much vexatious, frivolous, unreasonable and opportunitist post-employment claims would be a "spike back". So if the ET/court finds that the claimant is taking the piss, he loses his claim, he forgoes his right to be taken seriously in future claims, he pays his own costs in full, he pays the defendant's costs in full and then is made to apologise in public, on the steps of the court, in front of no less than 4 journalists.

That'll stop a lot of legal stupidity more-or-less instantly.

Lawyers who object are living proof of the suggestion's validity. What have the lawyers got to lose? Fees? Oh, I'm sure they'll think of another way....