The UK’s employment tribunal system is under unprecedented strain. What was once a relatively swift route to resolving workplace disputes has become a protracted and often unpredictable process, with significant consequences not just for employees but for employers too. Delays running from months into years are now becoming the norm.
These delays create a complex blend of legal, operational and reputational challenges for employers to face and they need to understand the scale of the issue, the factors driving it and how to mitigate its effects.
The current situation
Recent data paints a stark picture of a system under pressure. By the end of 2025, open employment tribunal caseloads had risen sharply, with single-claim backlogs exceeding 30,000 and overall outstanding claims surpassing 50,000 in England and Wales. Somewhere in the region of half a million individuals are waiting for outcomes across single and multiple claims, as new applications outpace the number of cases concluded.
The effect on timelines is equally significant. Average resolution times have increased markedly; up from around 19 weeks to over 30 weeks in just a year for many claims, with more complex cases taking far longer. In practice, hearings are often being listed 12–18 months after a claim is issued and – in some instances – even several years into the future.
What is driving the delays?
The backlog is not the result of a single issue. Rather, it reflects a “perfect storm” of structural, legal and practical pressures.
1. Demand outstripping capacity
Employment tribunal receipts have risen significantly, with increases of around 33% in some recent quarters, while disposals have declined. This imbalance alone ensures the backlog continues to grow.
At the same time, there has been insufficient investment in judicial capacity. The number of available judges and sitting days has not kept pace with the volume of claims.
2. More complex claims
The nature of claims has shifted. Discrimination and whistleblowing cases, which can be legally and factually complex, now account for a much larger proportion of tribunal work. Some sources estimate that the figure is 60–70% of claims.
These cases require longer hearings, more evidence and extensive case management, slowing the system further.
3. Legislative and social change
Changes in employment law, including expansions of worker rights and proposed extensions to limitation periods contained in the Employment Rights Act 2025, are expected to increase claim volumes further. Greater awareness of employment rights and the removal of tribunal fees have also contributed to rising claims.
4. Systemic and operational pressures
Long-standing underinvestment, combined with the after-effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and challenges in implementing court reforms, have left tribunals struggling to keep up. Even processes designed to reduce tribunal load, such as ACAS Early Conciliation, are under strain due to resource limitations.
What are the pressure points for employers?
While tribunal delays are often framed in terms of access to justice for claimants, there are significant consequences for employers.
1. Fading memories and weakening evidence
Employment disputes frequently hinge on factual detail – what was said to whom, what decisions were made and why. But after 12 to 18 months or more, memories inevitably fade. Even well-intentioned witnesses may struggle to recall events accurately, which can weaken an employer’s case.
2. Loss of key witnesses
Employee turnover compounds this problem. Witnesses may leave the organisation, retire or become uncontactable, making it difficult – or impossible – to rely on their evidence at hearing.
3. Document retention risks
Over time, documents may be archived, misplaced or deleted in line with standard retention policies. This can create gaps in evidence or require costly retrieval exercises at a later stage.
4. Increased costs and management burden
Prolonged litigation drives higher legal costs, repeated preparation and ongoing management involvement. Senior staff may need to revisit the same dispute multiple times over several years.
5. Prolonged uncertainty and reputational risk
Unresolved claims can remain a lingering risk on the business. This can affect financial planning, investor confidence and employer brand. In some cases, the mere existence of a claim over an extended period can shape internal culture and employee relations.
Practical action points for employers
While employers cannot control tribunal timelines, they can take proactive steps to mitigate the risks associated with any delay.
1. Prioritise early and robust documentation
- Make sure all key decisions are documented contemporaneously
- Keep a clear record of meeting notes, investigations and disciplinary outcomes
- Retain relevant emails and communications in a structured way
Early documentation is one of the most effective safeguards against fading memory.
2. Take witness statements early
Where a dispute arises and tribunal proceedings are anticipated:
- Obtain detailed witness statements as soon as possible
- Include chronology, context and supporting documents
- Ensure statements are signed and dated
This preserves evidence in its strongest form, before memories deteriorate.
3. Strengthen document retention policies
- Review retention periods to ensure relevant documents are not deleted prematurely. Err on the side of caution
- Implement “litigation hold” processes where claims are anticipated
- Use digital archiving systems that allow for long-term retrieval
4. Maintain contact with former employees
Where key witnesses leave:
- Keep up-to-date contact details where possible
- Consider exit processes that identify potential future witness involvement
- Engage early if their evidence may later be required
5. Review and improve internal processes
Prevention remains the most effective strategy:
- Audit disciplinary and grievance procedures
- Train managers on note-taking and fair process
- Ensure consistency and compliance with employment law
Strong processes reduce the likelihood of claims arising and improve defensibility if they do.
6. Consider early resolution strategies
Given the uncertainty of prolonged litigation:
- Evaluate settlement options at an early stage
- Use ACAS conciliation proactively
- Balance legal merit against time, cost and operational impact
Long delays can shift the cost-benefit analysis in favour of early resolution.
7. Plan for long-tail litigation
Realistic is better than optimistic and employers should assume that tribunal claims may take years, not months. Therefore:
- Budget for extended legal involvement
- Build continuity into case handling teams
- Maintain organised case files that can be easily revisited
Robin White, Legal Director – Head of Insured Employment at rradar says:
“We are aware that the number of ‘open’ claims (i.e. those that have not concluded at final hearing or settled) is ever increasing because fewer are settling early. With the increase in claims being notified to the ET, this is increasing both the volume of claims and the length of time it is taking to hear them because it is proving harder and harder to find suitable dates for the hearings to be scheduled. We already have claims of our own which are being scheduled as far away as late 2029, and our solicitors are regularly making clients aware that their cases may take years to conclude.
In theory, longer wait times for hearings to take place should lend itself to parties attempting to agree settlement at an early stage on a purely commercial basis.
However, claimants with unrealistic expectations of the value of their claims, not helped by lack of representation or their reliance on Artificial Intelligence, often do not want to settle for practical amounts and this can drag matters out when a compromise settlement could have been achieved a lot earlier.
We are trying to shift towards Judicial Mediation and ADR hearings in attempts to resolve matters quicker, and in some instances we have managed to do that.
But it does rely on both parties being reasonable and willing to compromise to get an outcome that is quicker to reach and mutually beneficial.”
