More than half of British businesses claim to be exceeding employment law requirements in the treatment of workers, a survey has found.

Many also wanted the recently imposed employment tribunal fee regime to be scrapped or significantly amended, according to the study jointly commissioned by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development and the London law firm Lewis Silkin.

Employers said that they would not lobby for a “bonfire” of legislation in the wake of the country’s departure from the EU as existing legislation was viewed by most as necessary and efficient. Britain’s bosses claimed to recognise the positive impact of employment law on their staff, with nearly 70 per cent agreeing that it improved employees’ sense of fairness and trust in the employer. A similar percentage agreed that implementing employment law improved the quality of employees’ working lives.

Some 20 per cent of the 500 businesses surveyed said that employment tribunal claims had decreased since the government introduced controversial fees for bringing claims. Only 3 per cent of businesses reported an increase in tribunal claims.

About a third of employers said they wanted to retain the fees, but a significant minority of 15 per cent said they should be abolished, while another 11 per cent said they should be substantially reduced. Nearly 20 per cent of businesses suggested a single £50 fee for all claims.

Another delivery company accused over contract workers

Hermes is the latest delivery firm to be hauled before the employment tribunal charged with denying employment rights to its delivery staff.

The London law firm Leigh Day and the GMB union have teamed up again to challenge the company’s of drivers as self-employed contractors. The claim alleges that Hermes avoids giving its delivery drivers basic rights including holiday pay and the national living wage. Several days ago Leigh Day lodged a similar action against the private document mailing business DX.

“Hermes are deliberately avoiding giving their couriers the rights to which they are entitled,” said Michael Newman, a lawyer at Leigh Day. “We have started employment tribunal proceedings in order to challenge this, so that these couriers can enforce their rights as workers.”

Hermes did not respond to requests for comment.

Judges and magistrates have been advised to limit their help with reviews into the death or serious injury of children that might have resulted from abuse or neglect.

They have been issued with guidance reminding them of the need to preserve judicial independence by the most senior family judge in England and Wales, Sir James Munby. There has been “widespread misunderstanding”, Sir James said, of the extent to which judges and magistrates can and cannot take part in such reviews.

From time to time, investigating authorities and local child safeguarding boards ask judges to take part in reviews after the death of a child. They may be asked for interviews, to give evidence or to complete a detailed review of an agency’s involvement with a child. The issue of judges helping with such reviews arose recently in the case of Ben Butler, who was jailed for life in June 2016 for the murder of his six-year-old daughter Ellie. She died less than a year after being reunited with her father by a High Court judge.

Sir James said: “Judges should provide every assistance to SCRs [senior case reviews] which is compatible with judicial independence. It is, however, necessary to be aware that key constitutional principles of judicial independence, the separation of powers and the rule of law can be raised by SCRs.”

He said that for “important constitutional reasons, judicial participation in SCRs must be limited” and advised that judges do not comply with requests to give evidence or complete forms. “The judiciary takes this stance, not because it wishes to evade scrutiny or accountability, but in order to protect its independence and the independence of individual judges,” he said.

Depression and anxiety are the most common cause of long-term absence from work, leading to tens of millions of pounds in claims for income loss, an insurance survey has shown.

One insurance company paid out £29 million last year in claims for personal income loss, a third of that as a result of mental ill health. The survey, conducted by the insurance company Wesleyan, found that that the next most common claims were for musculoskeletal problems (13 per cent) and cancer (13 per cent).

The figures were released before Mental Health Awareness Week, which starts next Monday. Clive Bridge, a Wesleyan managing director, said there had been “a huge drive in recent years to raise awareness of mental health issues in the workplace”.

Former partners at the defunct London office of King & Wood Mallesons have until the end of this month to top up a hardship fund for staff who are struggling financially after the practice collapsed.

It is understood that three of the law firm’s former partners, including Tim Bednall, the last managing partner of its European operations, are trustees of the fund. The Lawyer magazine reported that the fund intends to raise about £50,000, with payments to former employees to begin in June.

The London headquartered European branch of the firm – which was the product of an adventurous 2013 merger between a Sino-Australian practice and the Square Mile stalwart SJ Berwin – folded at the beginning of this year, reportedly under the weight of a £35 million bank debt.

The Legal Week website reported that up to 100 former partners had been emailed at the end of last month in an attempt to drum up cash for the hardship fund. It is understood that partners – most of whom have found roles at other City law firms – are being asked to donate between £1,500 and £2,000.

Justice is not being seen to be done in Britain because press seats in courts are almost always empty, the head of the barrister’s profession has warned.

Andrew Langdon, QC, of Guildhall Chambers in Bristol, said that as a result “citizen journalists”, often with their own agendas, were stepping into the gap to “feed a narrative that grossly distorts reality”.

Langdon, who is chairman of the Bar Council, which represents 15,000 lawyers in England and Wales, said that there were fewer and fewer court reporters and they may soon be “largely a thing of the past”, leaving the public with no “no professional narrative” of the “way we arrive at justice”. The silk said that the decline in court reporters means that “justice operates essentially unseen and unheard by the public”.

“Court reporters, and especially court reporters from local newspapers, have been declining in number for years and may soon be largely a thing of the past,” Langdon wrote in a column for Counsel magazine. He added: “The large majority of cases, although conducted in public hearings up and down the land, and although producing outcomes that often dramatically affect the lives of the citizens concerned, operate essentially unseen and unheard by the public.

“The way in which the outcomes are arrived at is thus something of a mystery for the large majority of the uninitiated public.”

In today’s Times Law…

• Celebrity divorce lawyers rated
  
• When the taxman looks to the stars
  
• Using the Lords as Brexit bogey man is lazy politics, says Lord Pannick, QC
  
• Business courts ditch paper
  
• How to share human rights cross-border expertise
  
• Beware of becoming a Scots law firm dodo
• Can you defend someone you know is guilty? asks Imran Mahmood
  
• Out of court: Judge Anuja Ravindra Dhir, QC
  
• Edward Fennell’s diary: Crime scene
  
• Law reports: Notice for possession can be in more than one document

And elsewhere …

• Facebook accused of failing to tackle piracy as 400,000 watch boxing free – The Times
  
• Justice by algorithm 'could bring courts to a halt' – Law Gazette
  
• Academic “debunks” claim that UK is whiplash capital of Europe – Legal Futures
  
• ‘Full fat’ courts option – Letters to the Editor, The Times
  

Corrections and clarifications

In our report yesterday on the Bar Standards Board consultation on reforming its disciplinary process, we described “satisfied so as to be sure” as the civil standard of proof. We meant to say that both that term and “beyond a reasonable doubt” describe the criminal standard, while the civil standard is “on the balance of probabilities” or “more likely than not”. We also referred to Philip Robertson as being the board’s policy director; he is in fact the Bar Council’s policy director.