top of page

We can help with your tribunal case!


We are able to review your case and provide you with as much or as little assistance as you may need from submitting the initial claim to dealing with the whole case.

You should also check any other methods of obtaining legal advice and representation such as checking Home Insurance Policies which sometimes cover you for employment disputes. If you have cover we can signpost you to trusted employment solicitors experienced in dealing with police and other emergency service cases.

Why are unions or the police federation sometimes reluctant to support employment tribunal cases?

The main reason is that thay are generally unable to recover costs as each side is responsible for their own costs. This means they are losing money by funding your case.


The other reason especially if it is a whistleblowing case is that the hearing is public and there is likely to be adverse publicity for the force.

An employment tribunal case is also the only time you will ever have any power over your force, there may be unwanted adverse publicity for your force, you can obtain disclosure relatively quickly compared to a claim at the High Court, you can cross examine witnesses of whatever rank including a chief constable / police and crime commissioner, you can also negotiate and utilse mediation.


We are able to help with mediation knowing the culture of the police service to try and resolve your case.


What if I can't afford legal representation or it is not viable and I am not a member of a union or the police federation?

As mentioned previously, check your home insurance and any other policies to see if you may have cover, if you have we would suggest that you contact us and we can signpost you to an employment solicitor who can take on your case.

There are other options which we can help with, you can be a Liigant in Person (LIP), you can be a LIP with a McKenzie friend/Paralegal sitting with you and helping you with your case, taking notes, advising etc, we can represent you however, the most cost effective options are for you to be a LIP with support from us.


There are various options available including us preparing your case and also utilising a direct access barrister however; this would be better suited to shorter case of a couple of days. 

What is a litigant in person?

A litigant in person (LIP) is an unrepresented party . It is common for individuals to bring employment tribunal claims on their own behalf as you do not need to be legally represented to bring a claim in the employment tribunal. 

The advantage of being a litigant person

It gives you an edge and helps to empower you, Respondent's don't like to deal with Litigant's in person, the two main implications for a Respondent are additional time and cost for them.


Inevitably a tribunal claim will not proceed in the same way if a litigant in person is involved compared to when both parties are legally represented.

A LIP is more likely to engage in more protracted correspondence, for example, repeating information and providing unnecessary documentation.  

Hearings involving LIPs tend to take longer as each stage of the tribunal process must be explained, and the LIP may not know how to effectively call and examine witnesses and make submissions. Usually requests for further and better particulars are more common.

A respondent is likely to incur additional costs when the claimant is a LIP because the respondent’s legal representative is required to sift through more correspondence and guide the LIP through the process to some extent.

There are very limited circumstances when a tribunal will award a costs order against a LIP and in any event such orders are even more difficult to enforce.

Opposing party’s obligations towards a litigant in person

Although the opposing party and their legal representative do not owe a duty of care towards a LIP, the party’s legal representative must comply with their professional duties.

Solicitors owe a duty to the tribunal to further the ‘overriding objective’. This requires legal representatives to cooperate with LIPs and assist them to the extent that this aids the administration of justice and does not conflict with the duties owed to their client.

We have submitted complaints to the Solicitor's Regulation authority (SRA) concerning the conduct of Respondent's solicitors and have become adept over the years of spotting and challenging solicitor's unprofessional conduct. This has helped clients when those solicitors have effectoively been forced to remove themeselves from cases.

This has resulted in applications being made to strike out part or all of the Respondent's case and paves the way for the Claimant to make an application for a preparation time order at the end of the case. This way you get some of the money back for the time spent on preparing the case, presently this £43 per hour. 

Tribunal’s obligations towards a litigant in person

The tribunal must, as far as practicable, ensure that both parties are on an equal footing by offering guidance and assistance to an inexperienced LIP without demonstrating any bias. This can be a difficult balancing exercise for the tribunal.

The level of any assistance offered to a LIP is at the tribunal’s discretion, taking into account the circumstances of the case.


We can help in preparing requests for reasonable adjustments which could cover a wide range adjustments including the Cliamant being able to audio record the hearing.

Recent case of useful to LIPs – Moustache v Chelsea and Westminster NHS Foundation Trust

The EAT recently considered a case where the tribunal failed to consider one of the claims that a litigant in person intended to bring because the claim in question was not included on the agreed list of issues. The EAT allowed Mrs Moustache’s appeal on the ground that it should have been obvious to the tribunal and the respondent that she intended to bring the additional claim as a reference to it was made in both her claim form and witness statement.

The EAT also stated that it “may have been appropriate” for the respondent to have informed the tribunal of this potential claim in the event that the tribunal did not identify the claim by the final hearing.

Although this recent case does not establish a new precedent, it draws attention to the duties that parties and tribunals both have towards litigants in person.

0330 122 6146
bottom of page