Is the proposed change to the overriding objective an amendment too far? asks Anna Henderson
One might wonder whether this government has a mild case of obsessive compulsive disorder when it comes to employment legislation. It just can't stop tinkering: some regulations have even been amended before they come into force as well as several times after. To be fair, this is often because glaring errors were not spotted earlier. But in other cases there seems to be no sufficiently good reason. Some of the current proposed changes to tribunal rules are a case in point.
The overriding objective
In 2001 an "overriding objective" was introduced to guide tribunals in the exercise of their powers. This closely mirrored the civil court provision, requiring tribunals to deal with a case justly by, so far as practicable:
(a) ensuring that the parties are on an equal footing;
(b) saving expense;
(c) dealing with the case in ways which are proportionate to the complexity of the issues; and
(d) ensuring that it is dealt with expeditiously and fairly.
The 2004 version moved (b) to become (d), presumably to show
