Push-button access to justice sounds like a major improvement, yet the United Kingdom’s Employment Tribunals are discovering that too much accessibility can create problems. The tribunals are facing a sudden surge in interim applications for relief, largely driven by the rise of generative artificial intelligence. This influx has overwhelmed the system, forcing officials to issue new guidance to manage the caseload.
The friction of access
Friction in dispute system design refers to the effort or steps required to complete an action. According to behavioural psychologist Tom de Bruyne, every extra step between intention and action is a moment at which people fall away. While reducing friction is generally a goal in the access to justice community, too little friction can lead to automatic, poorly considered decisions.
Designers sometimes add “speed bumps” to slow people down and encourage deliberation. This concept applies to consumer purchases, where a small amount of friction forces reflection before a buy. When friction is removed entirely, as seen with Amazon’s “one click” shopping, impulse buying often increases. Similarly, the “zero-price effect” makes people ignore potential downsides when something is free. A price—whether monetary or based on time—forces a balance of benefits against costs, which can lead to better decisions.
AI tools function differently than previous technologies that reduced physical or clerical effort. The study referenced in the source notes that AI targets intellectual work and removes friction to an extreme degree. Using a chatbot allows users to move from ideation to evaluation without exerting meaningful effort, questioning the output, or engaging the cognitive processes that lead to ownership or critical thought. This ease of use lowers the barrier to filing a complaint, which can lead to meritless applications.
Read Also: Law publishing continues uninterrupted
Surge in applications
The Employment Rights Act in the UK provides interim relief in unjust dismissal cases, preventing a dismissal until the tribunal determines the outcome. The test for granting this relief is high; the applicant must show they are likely to win on the merits with something “nearer to certainty than mere probability.” Despite this high threshold, the number of applications has skyrocketed.
There has been a significant increase in applications, particularly in whistleblower cases, often indicating the use of AI. In previous years, tribunals would receive about 20 applications per year. Now, most offices receive 20 per month. The amount of documentation accompanying these applications has also increased, adding to the complexity of the system.
The backlog at the employment tribunals continues to grow, reaching 64,000 open cases by the end of March. This figure represents an increase from 45,000 the previous year. Because interim applications are emergency measures, tribunals must prioritize them over hearings on the merits. This priority often results in delays for other users, causing unnecessary backlogs and administrative strain.
The guidance document notes that because the success rate of these applications remains low, the trends have an adverse effect on the administration of justice. This creates a cascade of delays and additional paperwork for judges and legal professionals.
Read Also: Supreme Court Advocacy Highlights in Sunday Summary
Managing the influx
To address the overwhelming volume, the tribunals are implementing strict case management orders. Since the assessment focuses only on the prospects of success, oral evidence is not heard unless directed otherwise. The parties must ensure that the material placed before the tribunal is proportionate.
Specific limits are being placed on submissions. Tribunals may set page limits for documents or word limits for witness statements. Time allocations are being strictly enforced, including one hour for the judge to read materials, 30 minutes for oral submissions, and one hour to reach a decision and provide reasons. If the parties provide material exceeding what can be read in the allocated time, they must identify the most important documents, and the judge will restrict consideration to those.
The guidance document notes that AI-generated legal submissions tend to be “too long and complex, contain irrelevant material and fail to focus on the key points in the case.” Parties using AI have the responsibility to ensure that what is submitted is “concise, relevant and accurate.” One official compared the situation to bailing a rowboat with a thimble, suggesting that these steps may chip away at the onslaught but will not significantly address the underlying problem.
