Hmmm I'm not seeing it that clearly myself. What the intention was was to dissuade those that were taking the mick and didn't have a clear case. As per the official report I linked to earlier you can see that it also included an earlier review and more help to assess whether there is a case opposed to just a free for all and hope something sticks.
The Supreme Court seem to have decreed that the balance was tipped too far towards employers and have put more power back in the hands of the little people.Whether that's a good thing remains to be seen.
I genuinely thought you were making a joke. Or at least assumed you must have been with a statement like that.
Such as the employer named in this sentence?
"Mr Ashley then vomited into the fireplace located in the centre of the bar, to huge applause from his senior management team.”

If it is for all, how come many other elements cost money as well? I mean a small claims court (or whatever it is called these days) was most definitely not free to me. Getting legal representation is most definitely not free to me either...
But you personally have access to justice by your own means, a large proportion do not, hence legal aid and this current ruling. A successful obedient compliant society relies in part on the trust we all put in the rule of law and the knowledge that the courts will be there to enforce our rights should something go wrong. Without this access the fundamental principle of the rule of the law is being eroded.
So it is not the same for all. As I previously evidenced it was already free if you don't have the means. How can justice be for all if I have to pay more for it therefore will think twice and be certain whilst someone else can just go on fishing expedition after fishing expedition.
Where's the evidence that people were using the justice system willy nilly.
I'll provide a longer answer, I'm out with the family now ..
Listen to the legal hour on LBC from last Wednesday evening. You can hear the recommendations from the legal team very clearly to simply give it a go as it is free from today.
The other part is taking a look at the actual success rates.
Ah, our old friend the ECHR, the darling of the liberal judiciary, which allows them to make so many perverse interpretations of the law. I should have guessed it was behind yet another perverse liberal judgement.