Urgent action needed to tackle record-high Employment Tribunal case backlog

There were a record 77,594 open cases in the Employment Tribunal as of 30 June 2026, the latest quarterly tribunal statistics published by the Ministry of Justice (MOJ) reveal. With some hearings now not being listed until 2030, urgent reform is needed.

We are concerned to hear calls for a fee or costs regime to be introduced as a possible solution, which would only diminish access to justice for disadvantaged workers. Less radical measures such as firmer case management, tweaks to claim forms, and increased use of costs and deposit orders could take the pressure off the system, without shutting low-income claimants out.

Employment Tribunal backlog hits highest figure on record

The 77,594 cases pending a resolution in the Employment Tribunal as of Q1 2026/27 represent the highest backlog since records started in 2009/10 (Figure 1). This is an 8% increase over the quarter, and a worrying 46% increase in 12 months from 53,320 cases.

Figure 1.

The rapidly growing open caseload is driven by a large discrepancy between the number of cases received and disposed of. While the 14,459 cases lodged in Q1 2026/27 is a high figure for recent years, it is actually closer to an average figure compared with the quarters before Employment Tribunal fees were introduced in July 2013. Case disposals, on the other hand, are unusually low and at the lowest level since the COVID-19 pandemic (Figure 2).

Figure 2.

The Employment Tribunal system is evidently in crisis. As evidenced in our report, a growing backlog has manifested in increased waiting times across England and Wales. For example, some hearings in London, the worst affected and traditionally an under-resourced region, are listed up until 2030. 

There are many drivers of this backlog

What makes the problem more difficult to address is that the drivers of the backlog are manifold.

First, there is increasing case complexity. Acas data demonstrates that in 2025/26, 58% of Employment Tribunal cases received for conciliation were complex (open-track), significantly higher than the 45% in 2022/23. These cases require both a substantially longer final hearing, and often more hearings than simpler cases (e.g. about unpaid wages). Stakeholders, including the President of Employment Tribunals in England and Wales, have put this down to unrepresented claimants using artificial intelligence (AI) tools to draft claims forms and manage their cases.

Then, there is system capacity. Our research has shown that the number of judges and administrative staff has not kept up with the open caseload. The issue is particularly acute in London, where there are serious difficulties in attracting new judges, and pay rates for administrative staff are insufficient to encourage adequate recruitment and retention.

Underpinning all of this is the lack of access to legal advice. It is no surprise that litigants in person resort to AI guidance, when legal advice comes at significant cost. Free or cheap services are few and far between, and legal aid is limited to discrimination matters.

The question then is what solutions can be implemented to address these challenges?

Fees and a cost regime are not the way forward

We are concerned to hear calls for the reinstatement of Employment Tribunal fees (previously ruled to be unlawful by the Supreme Court) or an imposition of a costs regime in the sector and media. Either one would be harmful for financially disadvantaged workers. And if brought in, they would remove a crucial deterrent to labour market non-compliance for employers, who would know that most workers have neither the savings nor risk tolerance to pursue a case.

Frustratingly, these calls are based on the assumption that claimants are taking advantage of the system by throwing the kitchen sink at claim forms. If this has happened, it is only supported by anecdotal data. If anything, quarterly tribunal statistics show that single claimants’ cases are contained – over the last two years the average number of claims per case has remained steady at just 2.2.

What is likely happening is that, with the emergence of AI tools, previously uninformed workers are finding out that they have certain rights, and this is good for the rule of law.

So instead of financial measures, we recommend three actionable steps for the government to take.

Employment tribunals need emergency funding and workers need advice

The government should allocate emergency funding for the system in the upcoming budget. Freedom of information data received by the Work Rights Centre from the MOJ shows that despite the seriousness of capacity issues, real-terms funding has hardly budged in the last four years, increasing from £73.83m in 2022/23 to £79.75m in 2025/26. In contrast, when the system faced capacity issues during COVID-19, the Conservative Government increased funding to £92.72m in 2021/22.

Concurrently, we support continued reform of rules and procedure, so that the system is more efficient and friendlier towards litigants in person. The President of Employment Tribunals (England and Wales) recently issued new guidance on remote hearings and expanded the functions of non-judicial staff. There may be scope to use deposit and strike-out orders more often, to deal with evidently non-meritorious or vexatious claims. The ET1 claim form could also integrate AI to help litigants in person present their cases and draft reasonable schedules of loss.

Because an underlying driver of the backlog is claimants’ unfamiliarity with the system and lack of awareness of which claims have a prospect of success, legal advice is a crucial component of the solution. We recommend that the government allocates dedicated funding to employment legal advice services, focusing on regions with the greatest capacity issues.

The main thing is that stakeholders act swiftly – for every quarter that goes by, the backlog is likely to grow further yet.