to demand "a bit extra to go quietly". The employee may simply want his day in court. The employer may have little economic option but to offer a few months' wages ex gratia to get rid of the nuisance. It often costs that anyway to keep a disgruntled employee whilst working through grievances and disciplinary hearings, sometimes dragged out even longer by sick leave, so two months' wages is not really an "extra" cost. By offering an apology, a good reference, tax-free lump sum and avoidance of the time and cost and risk of losing, the employer may persuade the employee to make a similarly economic decision to drop the claim, sign a compromise agreement and clear his desk. It can be essential that the employee feels the employer has lost - hence the apology and payment. Winning a tribunal case is rarely an economic "win" - the parties being able to move on with their lives and business is more likely to be such an optimum economic outcome. Employer's tactics The claimant may have named the wrong person as employer and ended up missing the three-month deadline by the time he realises. The claimant may not be able to afford a lawyer, whereas the employer may be insured. The claimant may have not exhausted the grievance procedure. The claimant may have missed the three-month deadline. The employer could offer the claimant a new job to try to stop the clock ticking on liability for loss of earnings (not likely to work if unsuitable or amounting to an invitation to work in a hostile environment). The claim may on the face of it have little prospect of success, enabling the employer to apply for a pre-hearing review which may result in the claimant having to pay a deposit of up to £1,000. Only one third of such claimants continue their claim. This helps stamp out timewasters or to negotiate a lower settlement, but if used frivolously will simply leave the employer with a claimant who thinks he is on a winner and so will cost more to settle. The employer can ask questions in advance via the tribunal, to hopefully expose lacking evidence. Whoever calls a witness cannot cross-examine him. So the employer may prefer to sit back and let the claimant call witnesses. The employer can offer the claimant a settlement that gives him some of the savings he