Tribunals

In the English system two different types of institutions have been set up to resolve legal problems. These are the courts and tribunals. The distinction between the two is difficult to make as there is no precise definition of these terms. There is a wide use of the word 'tribunal' meaning any judicial assembly. This use of the word would include the courts. There is a narrower use of the word, however, which is of greater interest to the modern law student. In this sense the word is used to describe judicial assemblies which are not courts. These institutions fall into two broad categories:

• 'Domestic Tribunals' are non-state organisations set up as part of the disciplinary procedures of professio­nal or sporting organisations; (These do not concern us here.)

• 'Administrative tribunals' are bodies set up by the state, usually established by Act of Parliament, to perform judicial functions as part of the administration of some government scheme. The development of the role of administrative tribunals has taken place almost entirely* during the twentieth century. Their proliferation* was such that a Parliamentary Commission was set up in the 1960s to report on the situation. The report of this Commission, published in 1957 as the Franks Report, detailed the purposes of these tribunals, drew attention to problem areas such as the precise role of these bodies and their relationship with the court system, and made recommendations as to how tribunals should operate in the future. The recommendations in the Report were only partially* implemented*, leaving a number of problem areas.

A Council on Tribunals was set up as a consultative and advisory body. Its main task is to advise government departments in setting up administrative tribunals and to review the construction and working of these tri­bunals. The Council has at present some fifty tribunals under its jurisdiction including:

• the Rent Tribunals which settle disputes between landlords and tenants;

• the Education Appeals Committees which hear appeals against the allocation of school places by local edu­cation authorities;

• the Industrial Tribunals which settle the principal problems which may arise between employer and employee, such as redundancy* payment disputes, questions of unfair dismissal and the problem of equal pay.

One problem area still left officially unresolved is the thorny question of whether these tribunals have only an administrative role or if they also have an adjudicative role. The Franks Report stressed the point that these tribunals should have an independent adjudicative* role. However, in reality, government departments have a general influence over decision-making; therefore, administrative tribunals may not be regarded as pure court-substitutes.

Furthermore, there is the question as to whether the tribunals make law. Officially the answer is no; only the decisions of the courts of law may be regarded as binding law. However, in practice, tribunals have a strong tendency to follow their previous decisions and these decisions are regularly reported. Hence, a de facto sys­tem of precedent is in operation.

Essentially, the tribunals have been set up to relieve* the over-burdened* court system of work which may be dealt with in a less formal way by experts in the particular field. Increasingly, solicitors and barristers are being appointed as chairmen of the tribunals and their work is growing as the public becomes more aware of them. In this way tribunals provide a cheaper, speedier and more expert alternative to the court.

“The Modern English LegalSystem”

by P.F. Smith and SH Bailey

Дата добавления: 2015-07-20