Tribunals Statistics Quarterly - July to September 2013 - Includes SEND information for the academic year 2012/13
Source: data.gov.uk (2018-05-25)

Tribunals and Gender Recognition Statistics. The bulletin presents the latest statistics on type and volume of tribunal cases received, disposed of and outstanding and the number of Gender Recognition Certificates applied for and granted.  

The bulletin focuses on information on receipts (i.e. cases received by HMCTS), the outcome of cases by category (e.g. cases disposed of at hearing) and the caseload outstanding (snapshot of live cases at a specific point in time) for the three largest tribunals: Employment, Immigration and Asylum, and Social Security and Child Support. Additional data are available on timeliness, jurisdiction, Employment Tribunal fees, smaller tribunals, Employment Appeal Tribunal and regional receipts for the Employment Tribunal (management information). 

Annual data are published as follows:
* Employment Tribunal and Employment Appeal Tribunal annual statistics are published in September; these include information on representation of claimants, compensation and costs awarded in the Employment Tribunal for the financial year.
* Data from the Special Educational Needs and Disability tribunals covering the academic year are published in December. Further breakdowns include information on the number of appeals registered by type and nature of special education need, and outcomes.
* The number of adjournments and postponements by jurisdiction are published annually in June, along with the number of judicial salaried and fee-paid sittings by jurisdiction.

In addition to monitoring tribunal workloads and timeliness, they are used to assist in the development, monitoring and evaluation of tribunal related policy in collaboration with other Government departments, e.g. DWP, BEIS and Home Office.

Tribunals Statistics Quarterly 
July to September 2013 
 
Includes SEND information for the 
academic year 2012/13 
12th December 2013


Contents 
 
Contents 
1 
Executive Summary 
2 
Introduction 
3 
Receipts 
6 
Disposals 
12 
Caseload Outstanding 
16 
Timeliness 
18 
Special Educational Needs and Disability (SEND) 
20 
Annex A: Data quality and sources 
25 
Explanatory Notes 
26 
Contacts 
27 
 

Tribunals Statistics Quarterly July to September 2013 
Executive Summary 
This report presents the latest statistics on type and volume of Tribunal 
cases that are received, disposed of or outstanding as of the second 
quarter of the financial year 2013/14 (July to September 2013).  
Receipts  
 
HMCTS Tribunals recorded 214,300 receipts in the period July to 
September 2013. This is stable when compared with the same 
period of 2012, but down 16% on the previous quarter.  
Disposals  
 
There were a total of 218,700 cases or claims disposed of in July to 
September 2013. This represents an increase of 21% on those 
cases disposed of in the same period in 2012, and is the highest 
volume of disposals in a quarter since the start of this statistical 
series in 2008/09. 
Caseload outstanding  
 
For all tribunals combined, the caseload outstanding at the end of 
September 2013 was 928,300.  
Timeliness 
 
For Social Security and Child Support Tribunals, in July to 
September 2013 half of all cases were cleared in 17 weeks or less. 
For Immigration and Asylum , this was 21 weeks or less, and for 
Employment Tribunals, it was 48 weeks or less1 
Special Educational Needs and Disability 
 
In the academic year 2012/13 there were 3,600 Special Educational 
Needs appeals; this is a similar number to the previous year.  
 
In the academic year 2012/13 only 24% of cases were decided by 
the tribunal, of these 84% decided in favour of the appellant. The 
remainder were withdrawn or conceded. 
                                            
1 Timeliness differs by Tribunal jurisdiction, which reflects the different processes and 
types of cases. As such, direct comparisons across different types of Tribunals are 
difficult and should be treated with caution. 
 
2

Tribunals Statistics Quarterly July to September 2013 
Introduction 
Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) was created on 1st 
April 2011. It is an agency of the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) and is 
responsible for the administration of the criminal, civil and family courts 
and tribunals in England and Wales and non-devolved tribunals in 
Scotland and Northern Ireland. Employment Tribunal statistics cover 
England, Wales and Scotland. For historic publications of all Tribunals 
Statistics please see: 
www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ministry-of-justice/series/tribunals-
statistics 
In this report, total figures are used although users should be aware 
different Tribunals have been created or joined HMCTS at different points 
in time. A list of tribunals is in Table B.1.  
Further information on HMCTS statistics, including information on the data 
sources and terminology used in this report can be found in the Guide to 
Court and Administrative Justice Statistics.  
www.gov.uk/government/publications/guide-to-court-and-administrative-
justice-statistics 
Comparisons are typically made with the same quarter in the previous 
year. Some time series information is also given. For further information 
please see the Excel tables that accompany this report. These also 
contain details of the smaller volume tribunals which are not covered in the 
text presented here.  
This report focuses on information on receipts (e.g. the acceptance of a 
case by HMCTS), the outcome of cases by category (e.g. cases disposed 
of at hearing) and the caseload outstanding for the three largest Tribunals 
(Employment (ET), Immigration and Asylum (IA) and Social Security and 
Child Support (SSCS). The three largest Tribunals account for over 90 % 
of Tribunal receipts. 
Statistics on the work of the civil, family and magistrates' courts the Crown 
Court in England and Wales during July to September 2013 will be 
published by the MoJ on 19th December. These quarterly courts statistics, 
along with annual statistics, can be found in separate reports on the 
Gov.uk website, at: 
www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ministry-of-justice/series/courts-
and-sentencing-statistics 
 
3

Tribunals Statistics Quarterly July to September 2013 
Figure 1: First  tier and Upper Tribunal chambers 
 
For more information on the context for this publication please see the 
information below:  
Tribunal judgements: www.bailii.org/databases.html#uk  
Employment Tribunals 
Fees for Employment Tribunals and the Employment Appeals Tribunal 
were introduced on 29th July 2013, alongside wider reform of procedural 
rules (following the Underhill Review of Employment Tribunal Rules). 
Given that these changes were implemented part way through the quarter 
(July to September), these figures should be treated with caution. 
For background information on the reforms please see: 
www.justice.gov.uk/tribunals/employment 
www.gov.uk/government/publications/employment-tribunal-receipt-
statistics-management-information-july-to-september-2013  
www.gov.uk/government/consultations/employment-tribunal-rules-review-
by-mr-justice-underhill  
 
4

Tribunals Statistics Quarterly July to September 2013 
 
5
Social Security and Child Support 
The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) have carried out analysis 
on the overturn rates for Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) by 
region and health condition, for further information see: 
www.gov.uk/government/publications/employment-and-support-allowance-
-6 
Special Educational Needs and Disability 
www.justice.gov.uk/publications/corporate-reports/tribunals/send   
www.gov.uk/government/publications/children-with-special-educational-
needs-an-analysis-2013 
Scotland Tribunals (non-MoJ) 
www.mhtscotland.gov.uk/mhts/Annual_Reports/Annual_Reports_main  
www.asntscotland.gov.uk/asnts/181.25.141.html  
www.prhpscotland.gov.uk/prhp/128.html  
Northern Ireland Tribunals (non-MoJ) 
www.courtsni.gov.uk/en-
GB/Services/Statistics%20and%20Research/Pages/default.aspx 

Receipts  
HMCTS Tribunals2 recorded 214,333 receipts in the period July to 
September 2013. This is down 16% on the previous quarter, but stable 
when compared with the same period of 2012. The majority (60%) of 
these were in Social Security and Child Support (SSCS), a further 18% 
were Employment Tribunals (ET) and 13% Immigration and Asylum (IA).  
Figure 2 shows trends in both receipts and disposals since Q1 2008/09. 
Typically the number of receipts is greater than the number of disposals. 
This quarter is the second time in five years where HMCTS disposed of 
more tribunal claims than it received. Note that these figures are receipts 
and disposals in the quarter, rather than following the same cases through 
the system. 
Figure 2: Receipts and disposals for all Tribunals, 2008/09 to 2013/14 
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
2008/09
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
2012/13
2013/14
Number of receipts and disposals
 (thousands)
Receipts
Disposals
 
What has driven this? 
Figure 3 illustrates the receipts by the largest jurisdictions. As SSCS 
comprises nearly two thirds of receipts, this drives the overall trend. Fewer 
appeals against decisions made by the DWP were received by the tribunal 
in July to September 2013 (19% lower than April to June, but similar to the 
same period last year). Whereas the increase in recent quarters was due 
to appeals in relation to Employment and Support Allowance (ESA), the 
decrease seen since last quarter was driven by a fall in these receipts. 
                                            
2 These statistics do not cover the Upper Tier Immigration and Asylum Chamber 

Tribunals Statistics Quarterly July to September 2013 
Figure 3: Tribunal receipts by jurisdiction, 2008/09 to 2013/14 
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
2008/9
2009/10
2010/11 
2011/12
2012/13
2013/14
Number of receipts (thousands)
Social Security and 
Child Support
Employment
Immigration and Asylum
All Tribunals
                                           
 
Employment Tribunals (Table 1.2) 
Claims in employment tribunals can be classified into either single3 or 
multiple4 claims. Single claims are made by a sole employee/worker, 
relating to alleged breaches of employment rights. Multiple claims are 
where two or more people bring proceedings arising out of the same facts, 
usually against a common employer. As with singles claims, multiple 
claims can involve one or more jurisdictional complaints. Where claims are 
grouped as multiples, they are processed administratively and managed 
judicially together. We call these groups of claims ‘multiple claims cases’.  
To illustrate these differences please see the case studies below.  
 
 
3 A claim may be brought under more than one jurisdiction or subsequently amended or 
clarified in the course of proceedings, but will be counted only once. 
4 Multiple cases are where two or more people bring claims, involving one or more 
jurisdiction(s) usually against a single employer but not necessarily so, for instance in 
Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations (TUPE) cases, and 
always arising out of the same or very similar circumstances. As a multiple, the cases are 
processed together. 
 
7

Tribunals Statistics Quarterly July to September 2013 
 
Single claim - Bob works for a Building Company and has done so for a number of 
years. He is just over 50 years old and was recently overlooked for promotion.  Those 
promoted were much younger. Bob decided to issue a claim to the Employment 
Tribunal alleging age discrimination.  
In this instance the claim issued would be categorised as a ‘single’ claim with one 
jurisdiction complaint. If Bob also included a complaint in respect of unpaid wages in 
his claim, the tribunal would still categorise it as a single claim, but there would be two 
jurisdictional complaints within it that would need to be processed, managed and 
disposed of. As a rule of thumb, the greater the number of jurisdictional complaints 
within a claim, the more work it represents for the tribunal to hear and determine.    
 
Multiple claim (simple scenario) - Two Hundred individuals who work for Sunnydale 
Council bring claims to the Employment Tribunal for failure to provide equal pay for 
equal work. They present their claims jointly on one claim form and are all 
represented by the same lawyer. 
 
In this instance, the tribunal would formally issue 200 claims, recognising 200 
claimants and assigning 200 claim numbers. Given that each of the claimants 
presented a sole ground of complaint (equal pay), the tribunal would also recognise 
200 jurisdictional complaints.  
 
In this scenario, the ‘workload’ generated by the 200 claims would be most unlikely to 
equate to the workload generated by 200 single claims for equal pay. Accordingly, a 
better measure of the workload before the tribunal in respect of these proceedings is 
as a Multiples Claims Case. 
 
Multiple claim (more complex scenario) - Katie was dismissed by her employer and 
brings a claim for unfair dismissal. Sue was also dismissed in relation to the same 
incident and brings a separate claim (on a separate claim form) for unfair dismissal, 
against the same employer. Sue also includes a complaint unlawful deduction of 
wages prior to her dismissal. Although the claims were presented separately, an 
Employment Judge subsequently directs that the claims be joined as a multiple, and 
are from that point processed and managed together. 
In this instance the official statistics would show: 
a. One multiple claim case receipt 
b. Two multiple claim receipts (with Katie and Sue as the claimants) 
c. Three jurisdictional complaints ( 2 x unfair dismissal, 1 x unlawful deduction) 
In Employment Tribunals, the number of claims received in July to 
September 2013 was 39,514 – 17% fewer than in the same period of 
2012. This was driven by a 17% decrease Working Time Directive claims, 
which is the largest jurisdiction5. There were also large decreases in 
Unfair Dismissal (42%), and Redundancy (failure to inform and consult) 
                                            
5 There is a large group of multiple Working Time Directive claims that have fuelled the 
rise in multiple claims over recent years. This is mainly due to the fact that the claims 
have to be resubmitted every quarter. These are legitimate duplicates, and have to be 
registered with new case numbers each time they are resubmitted 
 
8

Tribunals Statistics Quarterly July to September 2013 
(36%). The largest increases were in Equal Pay (39%) and Sex 
Discrimination (35%).  
The trend in single claims is broadly steady, while the trend in multiple 
claims is more volatile due to large numbers of claims against a single 
employer which can skew the national figures. This is illustrated in Figure 
4 below. As the numbers of single and multiple claims are so different, 
they have been indexed with a baseline of Q1 2009/10 = 1. 
Figure 4: Index of ET multiple and single claim receipts6 
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
2012/13 2013/14
Index of receipts
Multiples
Singles
Baseline: 2009/10 Q1
                                           
 
The number of multiple claims cases has been falling over the last few 
quarters, from around 1,500 in July to September 2012 to around 1,000 in 
July to September 2013. This indicates that the volatility in multiple claims 
is due to the number of people within each claim not the number of cases.  
A claim (either single or multiple) can be brought under one or more of 
different jurisdictions, for example under Age Discrimination and Equal 
Pay. Therefore the number of jurisdictional complaints is always greater 
than the total tribunal claims accepted. On average in July to September 
2013, there were 1.7 jurisdictional complaints per receipt, consistent with 
previous quarters. 
 
6 The index compares the number of receipts with the baseline quarter. It shows the trend 
in single and multiple receipts but does not enable comparisons of the numbers of each.  
 
9

Tribunals Statistics Quarterly July to September 2013 
Immigration and Asylum7 (Table 1.3) 
In the period July to September 2013, there were 27,267 Immigration and 
Asylum receipts; an increase of 6% when compared with the same period 
of 2012. The longer term trend is a decrease in Immigration and Asylum 
receipts (see Figure 3).  
Managed Migration drove this increase, more than doubling from 5,493 
receipts in July to September 2012, to 13,694 receipts in July to 
September 2013. Managed Migration appeals are generated by people 
already in the UK who have been refused permission to extend their stay. 
This type of case comprises half of all Immigration and Asylum receipts. 
This rise is due to a higher level of Home Office decisions on immigration 
applications. Appeals are expected to continue at this higher level during 
2013/14 and will impact on disposals, timeliness and caseload 
outstanding.  
Entry Clearance appeals fell by 24% since the same period last year. 
There was also a decrease in the Family Visit Visa category, which has 
halved since last July to September. There have been two changes to 
Family Visit Visa appeal rights in this period. Firstly, the Immigration 
Appeals (Family Visitor) Regulations 2012 which came into force on 9 July 
2012, which restricted the right of appeal to a narrower definition of family 
visitor8. Secondly, the Crime and Courts Act 2013 removed the full right of 
appeal for family visitors and this change came into effect for new visa 
applicants on 25 June 2013.  A limited right of appeal still remains on 
Human Rights or Race Discrimination grounds. 
Social Security and Child Support (Table 1.4) 
Despite falling by a third since April to June, Employment Support 
Allowance (ESA) still comprises the highest number of appeals (59% of 
the total). As these volumes are so large, they drive the overall trend in 
receipts. After this, the next highest number was for Job Seeker’s 
Allowance (JSA) (18%) and Disability Living Allowance (11%). Of these, 
JSA increased the most (75%) since July to September 2012, from 13,051 
claims to 22,885 claims.  
Please note that Table 1.4 includes rows for Universal Credit (UC)9 and 
Personal Independence Payments (PIP)10 from this quarter. The first 
                                            
7 All references to Immigration and Asylum refer to the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and 
Asylum Chamber).  It is an independent Tribunal dealing with appeals against decisions 
made by the Home Secretary and Home Office officials in immigration, asylum and 
nationality matters 
8 www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/newsarticles/2012/june/25-family-visit-visa-
appeal  
9 Universal Credit was introduced on 29 April 2013 in selected areas of Greater 
Manchester and Cheshire. It will gradually be rolled out to the rest of the UK from October 
2013. 
 
10

Tribunals Statistics Quarterly July to September 2013 
receipts for PIP have started in this quarter, although they have not yet 
reached a hearing.  
                                                                                                                       
10 Personal Independence Payment (New Claim Appeals) which replaces Disability Living 
Allowance was introduced on 8 April 2013. 
 
 
11

Tribunals Statistics Quarterly July to September 2013 
Disposals  
A disposal is the closure of a case when work is complete. This can be 
through a claim being withdrawn, settled, dismissed or being decided at a 
hearing (either orally or on paper). 
There were a total of 218,732 cases or claims disposed of in July to 
September 2013. This represents an increase of 21% on those cases 
disposed of in the same period in 2012, and is the highest volume of 
disposals in a quarter since the start of this statistical series in 2008/09. 
What has driven this? 
Figure 5 shows disposals by the main tribunals. The increase in the overall 
number of disposals was driven by SSCS (an increase of 32% since July 
to September 2012 and part of a rising trend from 2009/10) which 
accounted for two thirds of all disposals in July to September 2013. The 
increase in SSCS tribunal disposals coincides with HMCTS running 
hearings on Saturdays, and recruiting more judges and medical members.  
Figure 5: Disposals by Tribunal, 2008/09 to 2013/14 
0
50
100
150
200
250
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
2008/09
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
2012/13
2013/14
Number of disposals (thousands)
All Tribunals
Social Security and Child Support 
Immigration and Asylum 
Employment
 
Employment Tribunals (Tables 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3) 
Employment Tribunals disposed of 27,581 claims during July to 
September 2013, similar to the same period of 2012. The numbers of 
disposals for single claims decreased by 13% while the number for 
multiple claims increased by 12%. The multiple volumes are more volatile, 
and can be affected by disposals of one or two large cases. The 15,249 
 
12

Tribunals Statistics Quarterly July to September 2013 
multiple claims in July to September 2013 actually related to 1,487 
multiple claim cases. This is 10 claims per case based on a simple mean, 
although in reality there is likely to be a large number of smaller cases and 
a few large cases, such as the Working Time Directive airline cases.  
Figure 6: Index of ET single and multiple disposals 
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
2010/11
2011/12
2012/13
2013/14
Index of disposals
Multiples
Baseline: 2009/10 Q3
Singles
 
Between July and September, 57,392 jurisdictional claims were disposed 
of (similar to the same period of the previous year). This means that on 
average, 2.1 jurisdictions were disposed of per claim, in line with previous 
quarters.  
Of the 57,392 jurisdictional complaints that were disposed of: 
 
18% were for unauthorised deductions; 
 
18% were for unfair dismissal; 
 
14% were for equal pay; 
 
15% were associated with discrimination (age, race, sex, sexual 
orientation, religion or disability) 
Three new outcome types came into effect this quarter, as a result of the 
Underhill Review of Employment Tribunal Rules (see Introduction). These 
were: 
 
13

Tribunals Statistics Quarterly July to September 2013 
 
Dismissed Rule 27 – complaints dismissed by an Employment 
Judge after initial consideration of claim and response11. 
 
Dismissed upon withdrawal – under new rule 52, an employment 
tribunal shall issue a judgment dismissing a claim where the 
claimant withdraws it, unless certain criteria are satisfied12. 
 
Case discontinued – this records complaints dismissed under rule 
40(1) where a party has not satisfied requirements in respect of 
paying a tribunal fee or demonstrating a case for remission13. 
‘Dismissed upon withdrawal’ accounted for five per cent of all disposals in 
July to September 2013. ‘Dismissed Rule 27’ and ‘Case Discontinued’ 
combined accounted for less than one per cent.  
Immigration and Asylum (Tables 2.4 and 2.5) 
The First-tier Immigration and Asylum Chamber (FTIAC) disposed of 
21,750 appeals in July to September 2013, similar to July to September 
2012.  
Managed Migration accounted for a third of these, with a quarter being 
Entry Clearance and further quarter being Family Visit Visas. Of the 
21,750 disposals in July to September 2013, 14,546 (67%) were 
determined (i.e. a decision was made by a judge at a hearing) at a hearing 
or on the papers; 22% were withdrawn; 6% were invalid or out of time, and 
5% were struck out. Rules to allow cases to be struck out14 were 
introduced following the introduction of fee charging.  
Of the 14,546 cases that were determined between 1 April and 30 June 
2013, 55% were dismissed and the remaining 45% were allowed. 
Social Security and Child Support (Tables 2.6 and 2.7) 
Of the 150,336 SSCS cases disposed of in July to September 2013; 67% 
were for ESA (up from 56% from July to September 2012); 12% for 
Disability Living Allowance and 11% for JSA.  
                                            
11 Under Rule 27, an Employment Judge can dismiss a claim, or any part of a claim, if 
s/he considers that it has no reasonably prospect of success, or that the tribunal has no 
jurisdiction to hear the claim (or part thereof). This is a new provision introduced on July 
29th 2013.  
12 Again, this provision is new to the rules of procedure. Its operation is being monitored 
through these statistics to monitor impact of the rule. 
13 See footnote [12]. 
14 Appeal closed administratively where the fee has not been paid, remitted or exempted. 
 
14

Tribunals Statistics Quarterly July to September 2013 
Between April and June 2013, 82% of all SSCS cases were cleared at a 
hearing, a similar proportion to last year. Of these the overturn rate15 was 
39%, i.e. 39% had the initial decision revised in favour of the claimant. 
The overturn rate varies by benefit type with 18% of JSA cases, 40% of 
Disability Living Allowance and 43% of ESA cases cleared at hearing 
having the original decision revised in favour of the claimant. 
                                            
15 The overturn rate is the rate of decisions by the original body that are reversed 
 
15

Tribunals Statistics Quarterly July to September 2013 
Caseload Outstanding 
At the end of September 2013, the caseload outstanding was 938,316. 
This is an increase of 15% on the same period last year (see Figure 7).  
Figure 7: Caseload outstanding at end of September 2013 
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1,000
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2
2007/08
2008/09
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
2012/13
2012-13
Caseload outstanding (thousands)
All tribunals
Social Security and Child 
Support
Employment
Immigration and Asylum
 
Around two thirds (67%) of the outstanding caseload at the end of the 
quarter related to 'multiple' claims in Employment Tribunals. Multiple 
claims are often legally and factually complex and it is common for action 
on such claims to be deferred (‘stayed’, or ‘sisted’ in Scotland), for 
example pending the outcome of proceedings in appellate courts/tribunals 
on case management or other interim matters. This means that such 
claims are not yet ready to have a final hearing in the employment tribunal, 
and so the claim cannot be progressed to disposal. Resubmitting some 
large multiple claims on a quarterly basis also skews the data. 
Figure 8 clearly shows the increase of multiples building up in the system, 
remaining outstanding where previously the vast majority of cases were 
not stayed.  
 
16

Tribunals Statistics Quarterly July to September 2013 
Figure 8: Index of ET single and multiple claims outstanding 
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
2008/09
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
2012/13 2013/14
Index of caseload outstanding
Multiples
Singles
Baseline: 2008/09 Q1
 
Caseload Outstanding (Table 3.1) 
There were increases in caseload outstanding for a number of tribunals, 
specifically SSCS saw an increase of 36% and IA saw an increase of 
31%, related to the increased receipts discussed above.  
There were decreases in caseload outstanding for other tribunals, 
including a 15% reduction for single ET claims and 19% for Mental Health.  
The published statistics cover receipts, disposals and caseload 
outstanding in the tribunal service over a specific period of time. Tribunals 
cover a range of different jurisdictions and work with a number of different 
live case management databases. The live caseload (caseload 
outstanding) is based on a snapshot of live cases at a specific point in 
time, once taken it cannot be revised or revisited. Because of 
this approach the caseload outstanding is currently based on a snapshot 
of the caseload on a specific day, and is not simply calculated by 
subtracting receipts and disposals. 
 
 
17

Tribunals Statistics Quarterly July to September 2013 
Timeliness  
This section provides information about the operation of tribunals to assist 
users to assess the efficiency and effectiveness of public services. The 
timeliness measures generally examine the process from receipt to the 
point at which the appellant is notified of the outcome of the hearing (or 
when they are notified of a settlement, withdrawal or strike out). When 
examining the measures, a number of points should be noted: 
 
The clearance times (expressed in weeks or years) are highly 
dependent upon the processes that take place within a Tribunal and 
the type and complexity of a case. In some instances, appeals can 
be stayed because a judgement is awaited from another body (for 
example European Courts), or may be legally complex. 
 
The measures can not be directly compared between one Tribunal 
and another because of the different processes and very diverse 
nature and requirements of individual jurisdictions. Thus, it is better 
to compare a specific Tribunal over time.  
The information provided is based on the age (expressed in weeks or 
years) at which cases were cleared. There are differences by case or 
tribunal types, please see supplementary tables for more information.  
Summary of Timeliness Measures (Tables 4.1 – 4.3) 
The measures examine the age of a case when it is cleared or disposed of 
and gives the point at which 25%, 50% (the median), and 75% of cases 
were cleared, along with the mean. For example, in Immigration and 
Asylum, 75% of cases that were cleared in July to September were aged 
34 weeks or less. 
Table 1: Cumulative percentage of clearances in July to September 
2013, by age of case at clearance 
Tribunal 
25% point  
50% point  
75% point 
Average 
(mean) 
Immigration and 
Asylum (all) 
13 weeks or 
less 
21 weeks or 
less 
34 weeks or 
less 
26 weeks 
Employment 
(single) 
11 weeks or 
less 
17 weeks or 
less 
27 weeks or 
less 
26 weeks 
Employment 
(multiple) 
52 weeks or 
less 
3 years or 
less 
5 years or 
less 
168 weeks 
SSCS (all) 
9 weeks or 
less 
17 weeks or 
less 
25 weeks or 
less 
19 weeks 
 
18

Tribunals Statistics Quarterly July to September 2013 
Employment Tribunals  
For Employment Tribunals, the timescale recorded is from receipt by the 
tribunal to when details of the final judgement are given. The distribution 
for all ET cases is heavily influenced by the age of multiple cases (which 
can be stayed or await decisions from Higher Courts). The mean age of a 
single claim at disposal was 26 weeks, whereas this was 168 weeks for 
multiple claims. Overall the mean age was 114 weeks, up from 84 weeks 
in July to September 2012.  
Clearances for Employment Tribunals were also examined by broad 
jurisdictional group. The results for the July to September 2013 showed 
that Equal Pay cases had average of over four years (229 weeks), while 
Working Time Regulations and National Minimum Wage cases had the 
shortest average clearance time of 27 weeks. 
Immigration and Asylum 
The time is recorded from receipt by the tribunal to the time that a decision 
was notified to the appellant. The mean age of a case at disposal was 26 
weeks in July to September 2013, seven weeks longer the same period 
last year, and mainly due to the large increase in Managed Migration 
cases discussed above.  
Variations in clearance times between case types are due to different 
processing timescales which apply to each of the Immigration and Asylum 
jurisdictions. For example in July to September 2013, three quarters of 
Asylum cases are completed by 12 weeks or less, whereas for Entry 
Clearance Officer appeals it is 42 weeks or less.  
Social Security and Child Support 
For SSCS the time is recorded from receipt by the tribunal to the time that 
a decision was notified to the appellant. 
Of those cases disposed of by SSCS between July and September 2013, 
the mean age of a case at disposal was 19 weeks, the same as than July 
to September 2012. 
The composition of the Tribunal panel varies for each benefit and there 
are some differences in length of clearance time for each type of appeal. 
Those appeals which can be heard by a Judge sitting alone (such as 
appeals against decisions on Job Seekers’ Allowance) take less time to 
clear than appeals where a panel including specialist Medical, Financial or 
Disability panel members is required (see Table 4.3).  
 
19

Tribunals Statistics Quarterly July to September 2013 
Special Educational Needs and Disability (SEND) 
This chapter focuses on Special Educational Needs and Disability cases. 
Data is presented in academic years, from the 1st of September to 31st 
August. As such figures presented here differ from the information in the 
other tribunals’ tables. This information is only presented on an annual 
basis.  
 The chapter is divided into two sections;  
1. Special Educational Needs  
2. Disability Discrimination claims  
Further information on HMCTS and other court statistics, including 
information on the data sources and terminology used in this report can be 
found in the Guide to Court and Administrative Justice Statistics.  
The first-tier special educational needs and disability (SEND) jurisdiction 
hears appeals against local authorities in England against decisions 
relating to statements of Special Educational Needs. It also hears disability 
discrimination claims against schools. 
This chapter focuses on information on the appeals and decisions in 
relation to Special Educational Needs, broken down by grounds for 
appeal, outcomes and ethnicity of the child involved and local authority 
information. There is also information on Disability Discrimination Claims, 
broken down by grounds for appeal, outcomes, legal representation and 
ethnicity of the child involved.  
For further information on children with special educational needs please 
see the publication by the Department for Education below:  
www.gov.uk/government/publications/children-with-special-educational-
needs-an-analysis-2013 
 
20

Tribunals Statistics Quarterly July to September 2013 
Special Educational Needs (SEN) 
The First-tier special educational needs and disability (SEND) jurisdiction 
hears appeals against decisions of local authorities in England relating to 
statements of Special Educational Needs.  
Pupils with Special Educational Needs are currently16 classified into three 
distinct levels of provision for need: School Action, School Action Plus or 
with statements of special educational needs: 
• School Action – where extra or different help is given from that provided 
as part of the school’s usual curriculum. 
• School Action Plus – where the class teacher and the school special 
educational needs coordinator17 receive advice or support from outside 
specialists (a specialist teacher, an educational psychologist, a speech or 
language therapist or other health professionals). 
• Statement – a pupil has a statement of special educational needs when a 
formal assessment has been made. A document setting out the child’s 
needs and the extra help they should receive is in place. 
Pupils with Special Educational Needs may need extra help because of 
their type of need. These include: profound and multiple learning difficulty; 
behavioural, emotional and social difficulty; and speech, language and 
communication needs.  
Registered SEN appeals 
In the academic year September 2012/13 HMCTS Tribunals recorded 
3,602 registered appeals in relation to SEN, this is a similar number to the 
previous year. In the decade from 1994 to 2004 there was a steep 
increase in the number of registered SEN appeals, from 1,161 in the 
academic year 1994/9518 to 3,215 in the academic year 2004/05. Since 
then the trend has been more stable. There was a small decrease in the 
number of appeals up until the academic year 2008/09 after which time 
numbers rose again, and are now back at the 2002/03 level.  
                                            
16 Assessments and statements of special educational needs are to be replaced with a 
single assessment process and combined Education, Health and Care plan. The 
proposal is that School Action and School Action Plus will be replaced by a single school-
based special educational needs category. 
17 A special educational needs coordinator (SENCO) is a member of staff at school who 
has responsibility for coordinating special educational need provision within that school. 
18 Earlier data has been taken from historic reports on SEND published by, what is now, 
the Department for Education,  
 
21

Tribunals Statistics Quarterly July to September 2013 
Figure 9: Registered appeals to the SEND Tribunal, September 1994 
to August 2013 
-
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
1994-1995
1995-1996
1996-1997
1997-1998
1998-1999
1999-2000
2000-2001
2001-2002
2002-2003
2003-2004
2004-2005
2005-2006
2006-2007
2007-2008
2008-2009
2009-2010
2010-2011
2011-2012
2012-2013
Registered Appeals
 
What has driven this? 
There are a number of factors that could have contributed to the risk in 
SEND appeals between 1994 and 2013. These include;  
 
Greater understanding of special educational needs 
 
More provision of services 
 
Parents more willing to challenge local authorities  
 
Stronger push to keep children with special educational needs in 
stage / mainstream schools.  
Registered appeals by type (Table 2) 
In the academic year 2012/13 the most common type of appeal was 
‘against refusal to assess’, accounting for 36% of appeals. This means the 
local authority refused to have a child assessed for special educational 
needs. This has historically been the most common category.  
Registered appeals by nature of special educational need 
(Table 3) 
There are a number of different grounds for bringing an appeal under 
special educational needs. In the academic year 2012/13 the most 
common nature of SEN cited was Autistic Spectrum Disorder , accounting 
for 34% of appeals. This category has increased over time, and only 
 
22

Tribunals Statistics Quarterly July to September 2013 
accounted for 13% of appeals in the academic year September 1998 to 
August 1999. This change may be due to more awareness of this issue.  
Ethnicity of children involved in special educational 
tribunals (Table 4) 
In around 46% of the appeals in relation to special educational need the 
child involved was from a white ethnic background19. In a further 45% of 
cases the ethnicity of the child was not reported. In only 7% of cases the 
child was classed being from a Black or Asian background.  
Local Authority Breakdowns (Tables 6 and 7) 
SEND appeals can be broken down by local authority in England, however 
due to the differences in sizes in local authorities a rate of appeals per 
10,000 school children is calculated. This is highest in the Isle of Wight 
with 16.5 appeals per 10,000 school children. Although the rate controls 
for the number of children in the area it does not control for other factors 
within local authorities.  
Outcomes of SEN appeals 
In the academic year 2012/13 HMCTS Tribunals recorded 3,352 outcomes 
in relation to SEN, this is broadly in line with the previous year.  
Outcomes of Special Educational Needs appeals (Tables 8, 
9 and 10) 
In the academic year 2012/13 only 24% of cases were decided. The 
remaining 76% of cases were withdrawn or conceded. These proportions 
vary by the nature of the appeal. Of the cases decided, 84% were decided 
in favour of the appellant.  
                                            
19 Ethnicity is self reported 
 
23

Tribunals Statistics Quarterly July to September 2013 
Disability Discrimination Claims  
Disability discrimination claims relate to appeals against a school or 
academy in England. Schools or academies must not discriminate against 
a pupil because of disability20 in relation to admissions, the provision of 
education and access to any benefit, facility or service; or exclusions. It is 
also unlawful for a school to harass or victimise an applicant or pupil 
because of disability. 
Disability discrimination may be: 
• discrimination arising from disability; 
• failure to provide a reasonable adjustment for a disabled child; 
• direct discrimination; 
• indirect discrimination; 
• harassment; or 
• victimisation. 
Received and Registered Disability Discrimination appeals 
In the academic year September 2012 to August 2013 there were 135 
registered appeals in relation to disability discrimination. Of these 67 were 
decided by the SEND tribunal.  
Most of the appeals are uncategorised in their nature.  
                                            
20 The Equality Act 2010 defines a disability as a physical or mental impairment which 
has a substantial (more than minor or trivial) and long-term adverse effect (to last for at 
least a year or for the rest of their life) on the disabled person’s ability to carry out normal 
day-to-day activities. 
 
24

Tribunals Statistics Quarterly July to September 2013 
Annex A: Data quality and sources 
Information presented in this report is management information drawn 
from a number of different administrative sources. Although care is taken 
when processing and analysing the data, the details are subject to 
inaccuracies inherent in any large-scale recording system and it is the best 
data that is available at the time of publication. HMCTS is examining the 
quality of management information. Thus, it is possible that some revisions 
may be issued. 
The statistics are based on case management systems where a number of 
processes are recorded throughout the life of an appeal. In some 
instances, a case can re-enter the process or have a number of outcomes, 
meaning that there is not necessarily one receipt or one disposal per case. 
Thus, care should be taken when comparing receipts and disposals. 
Further information on HMCTS and other court statistics, including 
information on the data sources and terminology used in this report can be 
found in A Guide to Court and Administrative Justice Statistics.  
www.gov.uk/government/publications/guide-to-court-and-administrative-
justice-statistics  
Revisions 
All the statistics in this publication have been revised to show unit values 
rather than the rounded numbers shown previously.  
Historic receipt and disposal information for Immigration and Asylum has 
been revised to include appeals dismissed or withdrawn at the Preliminary 
Issue stage. This is where an appeal has been submitted outside the 
prescribed time limit or may be otherwise invalid. Such cases will only 
proceed to the appeal stage if decided by a Judge. A new disposal 
category of “Invalid/Out of Time” has been introduced to show appeals 
dismissed at the Preliminary Issue stage. Cases withdrawn at this stage 
are included in the “Withdrawn” category. 
For 2012/13 a further new outcome category has been introduced for 
Immigration and Asylum disposals of “Struck Out for Non-Payment”. This 
is as a result of the introduction of fees for certain Immigration and Asylum 
appeals introduced in 2011. Some of the historic disposal and outcome 
data has been revised following this. 
Please note data from the fourth quarter of 2012/13 (1 January to 31 
March 2013) onwards un-rounded figures have been provided. All 
previously rounded figures have been revised with the original un-rounded 
data, except some of the historical judicial sitting days.  
 
25

Tribunals Statistics Quarterly July to September 2013 
Explanatory Notes 
Notation 
The following symbols have been used throughout the tables in this 
bulletin:  
.    
= Not applicable 
..   
= Not available 
-  
= Small Value 
~ 
= No cases dealt with so rate could not be calculated 
0   
= Nil 
(r)  
= Revised data 
(p)  
= Provisional data 
 
Spreadsheet files of the tables contained in this document are also 
available to download.  
 
26

Tribunals Statistics Quarterly July to September 2013 
 
27
Contacts 
Press enquiries on the contents of this bulletin should be directed to the 
MoJ or HMCTS press offices: 
Christian Cubitt 
Tel: xx-xxxx-xxxx 
Email: xxx@xxx.xx  
Mark Kram 
Tel: xx-xxxx-xxxx 
Email: xxx@xxx.xx 
Other enquiries about these statistics should be directed to the Justice 
Statistics Analytical Services division of the MoJ: 
Alison Colquhoun 
Ministry of Justice 
102 Petty France 
London 
SW1H 9AJ 
Tel: xx-xxxx-xxxx 
Email: xxx@xxx.xx 
General enquiries about the statistics work of the MoJ can be e-mailed to 
xxx@xxx.xx 
General information about the official statistics system of the UK is 
available from www.statistics.gov.uk