HMCTS does not hold separate data on the number of wrongful dismissal claims.

The quarterly average length of proceedings for unfair dismissal claims can be found in the published statistics: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/tribunal-statistics-quarterly-january-to-march-2021.

These are only available until April 2021. Publication of Employment Tribunal timeliness information ceased from April 2021 when the jurisdiction moved to an interim database with limited management information. Employment Tribunals are now in the process of transitioning to a new case management system and work is in hand as part of the HMCTS data strategy to reintroduce the publication of timeliness information at the end of this calendar year.

Several measures have been taken to reduce the average waiting time for a first hearing in Employment Tribunals including the recruitment of additional judges. To address growing demand, the government invested £2.85 million in December 2022 to allow up to 1,700 more cases to come before judges by the end of March 2023. We also created a virtual region of fee-paid judges to hear remote cases from any region.

Additionally, the Judicial Review and Courts Act transfers Employment Tribunal rule-making powers to the Tribunal Procedures Committee. This independent, judge-led committee will allow the Tribunal to respond more swiftly and flexibly to the challenges it faces through operational changes and rulemaking. This measure will also allow the judiciary to manage their workloads more flexibly, maximising the capacity of the Employment Tribunal

HMCTS does not hold separate data on the number of wrongful dismissal claims.

The quarterly average length of proceedings for unfair dismissal claims can be found in the published statistics: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/tribunal-statistics-quarterly-january-to-march-2021.

These are only available until April 2021. Publication of Employment Tribunal timeliness information ceased from April 2021 when the jurisdiction moved to an interim database with limited management information. Employment Tribunals are now in the process of transitioning to a new case management system and work is in hand as part of the HMCTS data strategy to reintroduce the publication of timeliness information at the end of this calendar year.

Several measures have been taken to reduce the average waiting time for a first hearing in Employment Tribunals including the recruitment of additional judges. To address growing demand, the government invested £2.85 million in December 2022 to allow up to 1,700 more cases to come before judges by the end of March 2023. We also created a virtual region of fee-paid judges to hear remote cases from any region.

Additionally, the Judicial Review and Courts Act transfers Employment Tribunal rule-making powers to the Tribunal Procedures Committee. This independent, judge-led committee will allow the Tribunal to respond more swiftly and flexibly to the challenges it faces through operational changes and rulemaking. This measure will also allow the judiciary to manage their workloads more flexibly, maximising the capacity of the Employment Tribunal

It has not proved possible to respond to this question in the time available before Prorogation. Ministers will correspond directly with the Member.

It has not proved possible to respond to this question in the time available before Prorogation. Ministers will correspond directly with the Member.

It has not proved possible to respond to this question in the time available before Prorogation. Ministers will correspond directly with the Member.

It has not proved possible to respond to this question in the time available before Prorogation. Ministers will correspond directly with the Member.

It has not proved possible to respond to this question in the time available before Prorogation. Ministers will correspond directly with the Member.

Information on the number of cases received and completed, and the average duration of a review, is available on the Criminal Cases Review Commission’s (CCRC) website and in their annual report. The table below provides data for the last five complete business years:

The average number of Case Review Managers over the past five years is as follows:

Section three of the CCRC’s published Case Review Process policy (CW-POL-04-Case-Review-Process-v3.0.pdf (cloud-platform-e218f50a4812967ba1215eaecede923f.s3.amazonaws.com)) outlines that cases are generally allocated in date order of receipt. However, there are several exceptional factors which determine the degree of priority once a case is under review. These assessments are fluid and relative to the needs of other cases. There are several factors for a case to be given higher priority, these include old age (75 years or older) and/or ill health, supported by medical evidence, where there is concern that the applicant may die before the case is dealt with. In addition, evidence that the applicant’s serious ill health (or that of any close family member of the applicant) is directly and significantly aggravated by any delay will also result in the case being given higher priority. The full list of factors for a case to be given a higher priority can be found in the Case Review Process policy.

HMCTS recognises that average waiting times for a grant of probate increased during 2023 following on from a sustained increase in receipts.

HMCTS remains focused on improving the service and doing all we can do to make it as effective and speedy as possible. In addition, HMCTS has increased staffing levels and streamlined internal processes to improve waiting times.

Management information published by HMCTS (which does not go through the same level of quality assurance and analysis as the Family Court Statistics Quarterly) shows the average mean length of time taken for a grant of probate from receipt of documentation reduced by three weeks in March 2024 to nine weeks.

The increase in the probate application fee to £300 was implemented on 1 May 2024. This was one of 172 court and tribunal fees that were increased by 10% to partially reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index since 2021, the last time that court and tribunal fees were increased. Given the short period of time the higher fee has been in place, an assessment on the impact of the probate fee increase has not been completed at this time. The increases are estimated to raise additional income of £30m-37m per annum, which will provide funding to support the effective delivery of court and tribunal services.

HMCTS recognises that average waiting times for a grant of probate increased during 2023 following on from a sustained increase in receipts.

HMCTS remains focused on improving the service and doing all we can do to make it as effective and speedy as possible. In addition, HMCTS has increased staffing levels and streamlined internal processes to improve waiting times.

Management information published by HMCTS (which does not go through the same level of quality assurance and analysis as the Family Court Statistics Quarterly) shows the average mean length of time taken for a grant of probate from receipt of documentation reduced by three weeks in March 2024 to nine weeks.

The increase in the probate application fee to £300 was implemented on 1 May 2024. This was one of 172 court and tribunal fees that were increased by 10% to partially reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index since 2021, the last time that court and tribunal fees were increased. Given the short period of time the higher fee has been in place, an assessment on the impact of the probate fee increase has not been completed at this time. The increases are estimated to raise additional income of £30m-37m per annum, which will provide funding to support the effective delivery of court and tribunal services.

Information on the number of cases received and completed, and the average duration of a review, is available on the Criminal Cases Review Commission’s (CCRC) website and in their annual report. The table below provides data for the last five complete business years:

The average number of Case Review Managers over the past five years is as follows:

Section three of the CCRC’s published Case Review Process policy (CW-POL-04-Case-Review-Process-v3.0.pdf (cloud-platform-e218f50a4812967ba1215eaecede923f.s3.amazonaws.com)) outlines that cases are generally allocated in date order of receipt. However, there are several exceptional factors which determine the degree of priority once a case is under review. These assessments are fluid and relative to the needs of other cases. There are several factors for a case to be given higher priority, these include old age (75 years or older) and/or ill health, supported by medical evidence, where there is concern that the applicant may die before the case is dealt with. In addition, evidence that the applicant’s serious ill health (or that of any close family member of the applicant) is directly and significantly aggravated by any delay will also result in the case being given higher priority. The full list of factors for a case to be given a higher priority can be found in the Case Review Process policy.

Information on the number of cases received and completed, and the average duration of a review, is available on the Criminal Cases Review Commission’s (CCRC) website and in their annual report. The table below provides data for the last five complete business years:

The average number of Case Review Managers over the past five years is as follows:

Section three of the CCRC’s published Case Review Process policy (CW-POL-04-Case-Review-Process-v3.0.pdf (cloud-platform-e218f50a4812967ba1215eaecede923f.s3.amazonaws.com)) outlines that cases are generally allocated in date order of receipt. However, there are several exceptional factors which determine the degree of priority once a case is under review. These assessments are fluid and relative to the needs of other cases. There are several factors for a case to be given higher priority, these include old age (75 years or older) and/or ill health, supported by medical evidence, where there is concern that the applicant may die before the case is dealt with. In addition, evidence that the applicant’s serious ill health (or that of any close family member of the applicant) is directly and significantly aggravated by any delay will also result in the case being given higher priority. The full list of factors for a case to be given a higher priority can be found in the Case Review Process policy.

Creating deepfake sexual images without consent is immoral and unacceptable in society. The Government has tabled an amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill that will criminalise those who create a sexual deepfake image without consent, and for the purposes of sexual gratification or to cause alarm, humiliation or distress. This builds on reforms introduced through the Online Safety Act which criminalised the sharing of, or threats to share, intimate images, including deepfakes, without consent.

Under sections 44 – 46 of the Serious Crime Act 2007, an individual who does not themselves commit a crime, may still face charges if they encourage or assist someone else to do so. These provisions will apply to the new deepfakes offence in the Criminal Justice Bill.

The situation is, however, more complicated if one or other of the people involved are not in England and Wales and whether a crime has been committed will depend on the specific facts of each case. This is because the jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales for acts committed overseas is limited.

Section 72 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, which in relation to some sexual offences extends the jurisdiction of the criminal courts of England & Wales to acts done overseas in certain circumstances, will not apply to the new offence. This is in line with standard Government policy that statutory extra-territorial jurisdiction should only be applied to serious and indictable offences, not summary offences. However, through the Criminal Justice Bill, we are making the two more serious offences of sharing intimate images (namely (i) sharing an intimate image without consent for the purpose of sexual gratification and (ii) sharing an intimate image without consent and with intent to cause alarm, distress or humiliation) subject to section 72 of the Sexual Offences Act , so that courts in England and Wales will have jurisdiction over those offences when committed abroad in certain circumstances.

The Employment Tribunals are responsible for hearing employment related disputes, including those related to unfair and wrongful dismissal. They provide an accessible and low-cost avenue for claimants, designed to be navigated without requiring legal representation.

Working with the Department for Business and Trade (DBT) and HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS), we have taken a number of steps to improve the capacity and efficiency of the Employment Tribunals, including the deployment of legal caseworkers, the recruitment of additional judges, and the establishment, by the judiciary, of an Employment Tribunal virtual region. Last month, we also made a small number of changes to the Employment Tribunal procedure rules which will support the implementation of a new reformed digital system, currently being developed and tested in four early adopter sites ahead of national rollout during the course of this year. Following these rule changes, we transferred the Employment Tribunal rule-making power to the Tribunal Procedure Committee (TPC) - an independent rule-making committee. Given the TPC’s expertise and experience, this transfer will improve efficiency in the making and amending of Employment Tribunal rules, to further enhance access to justice for all claimants. We continue to work with DBT and HMCTS on further measures to support the Employment Tribunals.

The Employment Tribunals are responsible for hearing employment related disputes, including those related to unfair and wrongful dismissal. They provide an accessible and low-cost avenue for claimants, designed to be navigated without requiring legal representation.

Working with the Department for Business and Trade (DBT) and HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS), we have taken a number of steps to improve the capacity and efficiency of the Employment Tribunals, including the deployment of legal caseworkers, the recruitment of additional judges, and the establishment, by the judiciary, of an Employment Tribunal virtual region. Last month, we also made a small number of changes to the Employment Tribunal procedure rules which will support the implementation of a new reformed digital system, currently being developed and tested in four early adopter sites ahead of national rollout during the course of this year. Following these rule changes, we transferred the Employment Tribunal rule-making power to the Tribunal Procedure Committee (TPC) - an independent rule-making committee. Given the TPC’s expertise and experience, this transfer will improve efficiency in the making and amending of Employment Tribunal rules, to further enhance access to justice for all claimants. We continue to work with DBT and HMCTS on further measures to support the Employment Tribunals.

Since the launch of the new digital service in 2019, over 1.2 million probate applications have been processed on the new platform and around 80% of applications are made digitally. HMCTS is committed to continually improving the system, using feedback from our users to help shape future improvements. In addition, HMCTS has increased staffing levels and streamlined internal processes to improve waiting times.

Management information published by HMCTS (which does not go through the same level of quality assurance and analysis as the Family Court Statistics Quarterly) shows the average mean length of time taken for a grant of probate, from receipt of documentation, reduced by 3 weeks in March 2024 to 9 weeks. Overall output has also increased, the first quarter of 2024 (January to March 2024) saw the highest quarterly number of grants issued since the statistics have been published, with 83,060 grants issued. This is a 32% increase on the same period in 2023.

Average waiting times for probate grants are routinely published on gov.uk via Family Court Statistics Quarterly and HMCTS Management information and currently cover the period up to December 2023 and March 2023 respectively.

HMCTS does not hold separate data on the number of wrongful dismissal claims.

Data on the proportion of claims for unfair dismissal which were successful at employment tribunals for each of the past ten years is held in the published stats up to March 2021.

The ‘Unfair Dismissal’ table ET 3 gives a breakdown of the outcomes by proportion: Tribunal Statistics Quarterly: July to September 2023 - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk).

The table below details the overall number of successful unfair dismissal claims by Financial Year from 2014-2015 to 2020-2021 only.

1. 01 April to 31 March

2. Unfair dismissal: Includes Unfair dismissal after exercising or claiming a statutory right. Unfair dismissal on grounds of capability, conduct or some other general reason including the result of a transfer of an undertaking on grounds of capability, conduct or some other general reason including the result of a transfer of an undertaking and Unfair dismissal in connection to a lock out, strike or other industrial action.

Publication of Employment Tribunal by jurisdiction ceased from April 2021 when Employment Tribunals moved to an interim database with limited management information. Employment Tribunals are now in the process of transitioning to a new case management system and work is in hand as part of the HMCTS data strategy to reintroduce the publication of Jurisdictional Outcome information at the end of this calendar year.

Data is taken from a live management information system and can change over time, as such the data may differ slightly to that of the official published stats as this data was run on a different date. Although care is taken when processing and analysing the data, the details are subject to inaccuracies inherent in any large-scale case management system and is the best data that is available.

HMCTS does not hold separate data on the number of wrongful dismissal claims.

Data on the proportion of claims for unfair dismissal which were successful at employment tribunals for each of the past ten years is held in the published stats up to March 2021.

The ‘Unfair Dismissal’ table ET 3 gives a breakdown of the outcomes by proportion: Tribunal Statistics Quarterly: July to September 2023 - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk).

The table below details the overall number of successful unfair dismissal claims by Financial Year from 2014-2015 to 2020-2021 only.

1. 01 April to 31 March

2. Unfair dismissal: Includes Unfair dismissal after exercising or claiming a statutory right. Unfair dismissal on grounds of capability, conduct or some other general reason including the result of a transfer of an undertaking on grounds of capability, conduct or some other general reason including the result of a transfer of an undertaking and Unfair dismissal in connection to a lock out, strike or other industrial action.

Publication of Employment Tribunal by jurisdiction ceased from April 2021 when Employment Tribunals moved to an interim database with limited management information. Employment Tribunals are now in the process of transitioning to a new case management system and work is in hand as part of the HMCTS data strategy to reintroduce the publication of Jurisdictional Outcome information at the end of this calendar year.

Data is taken from a live management information system and can change over time, as such the data may differ slightly to that of the official published stats as this data was run on a different date. Although care is taken when processing and analysing the data, the details are subject to inaccuracies inherent in any large-scale case management system and is the best data that is available.

HMCTS does not hold separate data on the number of wrongful dismissal claims.

Data on the proportion of claims for unfair dismissal which were successful at employment tribunals for each of the past ten years is held in the published stats up to March 2021.

The ‘Unfair Dismissal’ table ET 3 gives a breakdown of the outcomes by proportion: Tribunal Statistics Quarterly: July to September 2023 - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk).

The table below details the overall number of successful unfair dismissal claims by Financial Year from 2014-2015 to 2020-2021 only.

1. 01 April to 31 March

2. Unfair dismissal: Includes Unfair dismissal after exercising or claiming a statutory right. Unfair dismissal on grounds of capability, conduct or some other general reason including the result of a transfer of an undertaking on grounds of capability, conduct or some other general reason including the result of a transfer of an undertaking and Unfair dismissal in connection to a lock out, strike or other industrial action.

Publication of Employment Tribunal by jurisdiction ceased from April 2021 when Employment Tribunals moved to an interim database with limited management information. Employment Tribunals are now in the process of transitioning to a new case management system and work is in hand as part of the HMCTS data strategy to reintroduce the publication of Jurisdictional Outcome information at the end of this calendar year.

Data is taken from a live management information system and can change over time, as such the data may differ slightly to that of the official published stats as this data was run on a different date. Although care is taken when processing and analysing the data, the details are subject to inaccuracies inherent in any large-scale case management system and is the best data that is available.

HMCTS does not hold separate data on the number of wrongful dismissal claims.

Data on the proportion of claims for unfair dismissal which were successful at employment tribunals for each of the past ten years is held in the published stats up to March 2021.

The ‘Unfair Dismissal’ table ET 3 gives a breakdown of the outcomes by proportion: Tribunal Statistics Quarterly: July to September 2023 - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk).

The table below details the overall number of successful unfair dismissal claims by Financial Year from 2014-2015 to 2020-2021 only.

1. 01 April to 31 March

2. Unfair dismissal: Includes Unfair dismissal after exercising or claiming a statutory right. Unfair dismissal on grounds of capability, conduct or some other general reason including the result of a transfer of an undertaking on grounds of capability, conduct or some other general reason including the result of a transfer of an undertaking and Unfair dismissal in connection to a lock out, strike or other industrial action.

Publication of Employment Tribunal by jurisdiction ceased from April 2021 when Employment Tribunals moved to an interim database with limited management information. Employment Tribunals are now in the process of transitioning to a new case management system and work is in hand as part of the HMCTS data strategy to reintroduce the publication of Jurisdictional Outcome information at the end of this calendar year.

Data is taken from a live management information system and can change over time, as such the data may differ slightly to that of the official published stats as this data was run on a different date. Although care is taken when processing and analysing the data, the details are subject to inaccuracies inherent in any large-scale case management system and is the best data that is available.