Respondent adding previusly undisclosed documents to ET bundle...

mooks

Hi there,

I'm due to exchange bundles of documents for my ET next Tuesday, and today I received a revised index of documents from the Respondent. I'd sent them all of my documents earlier in the week.

In this index, the Respondent has added around 5-10 documents I have never seen before and have never had access to - and some of them may be pivotal - and one of them could possibly even be fabricated. They've also changed the names of documents that I'd listed on my index, so I have no idea whether the document I'm referring to and the document they've listed are the same.

The Respondent is asking that I approve the draft index before they'll send me the full paginated Bundle, but as far as I'm concerned if I haven't seen these documents before, I can't agree them.

There's also the fact that we're due to exchange witness statements in early May - and there's nothing to say that the Respondent won't send the Bundle just before then, leaving me no time to review my statements in light of this new evidence.

I'm really anxious and my blood pressure's through the roof - I'm most likely going to contact the ET office and tell them what's happening, but please - can someone help me?

fabio11

Hey Mooks
I am not really expert but think if you call ET and explain the situation they might be able to force repsondent to dislcoe the previously mentioned documents.
I have been told that sometime bundles are exchanged during just day before the hearing so its not really fair to claimant.

mooks

Hi Fabio - thank you for your reply.

I think giving the ET office is probably the best course of action at the moment. One of the documents in particular I've been requesting for the past two years and they've always refused to provide it - something that led me to believe it didn't actually exist. Now that it's been listed on their index, I'm starting to get the feeling it's been fabricated in the meantime - and the same goes for another few documents on the list.

Changing the subject slightly, if I want to make an assertion that the Respondent is fabricating evidence, what's the best way of doing this?

fabio11

Hi Mooks
Again I am not an expert and learning bit by bit as my case is progressing.
I had the same problem where Respondent was not releasing documents due to different excuses thus I asked ET to make an Order for mentioned documents to be sent within 14 days of the receipt of letter.

Its not new that Resondent is fabricating evidence, in almost all cases I have gone through Respondent has gone to any length to defend. I am afraid until unless you have solid proof of fabrication you cannot do something.

But I will advice you to take Respondent for Perjury whenever you get evidence that they had fabricated documents for ET.

DVardysShadow

mooks wrote: »

... Changing the subject slightly, if I want to make an assertion that the Respondent is fabricating evidence, what's the best way of doing this?

Firstly, don't make assertions To say that the ancient Egyptians built a pyramid on the dark side of the Moon would be an assertion. The problem is that you can come badly unstuck with assertions, they are simply statements without proof, evidence or logic to underpin them.

My experience of court is zilch. But I would think that you should not make assertions, nor should you let discrepancies pass. So you need to draw attention to discrepancies such as previous denials of the existence of the document or other internal inconsistencies and leave the court or ET to draw its own conclusions.

For example: "the respondent presents what it describes as Mr Hitler's diaries. As the court can see, these are written in green felt tip pen. Leaving aside the question of whether Mr Hitler was a person who would write his diary in green felt tip pen. I invite the court to consider whether Mr Hitler's 3rd Reich ever refilled any of its stationary cupboards contemporary with the invention of the felt tip pen'

Not: "the respondent presents what it describes as Mr Hitler's diaries. The respondent has forged these, because they are written in green felt tip pen"

mooks

I think it might involve some careful wording of my witness statement - it's basically evidence that should show why I was selected for redundancy. At a meeting where I appealed my selection for redundancy, they refused to present this evidence, and again when I requested a copy of my personnel file, it wasn't in there either. You'd think the evidence framework that showed why a person was selected for redundancy would be on their file - but no - nothing was...

It just seems remarkable that at this late stage it suddenly appears on their list of documents - and it's undated too...

Ihatecameron

You have to file all documents within a reasonable time, so the other side has time to respond to them.
Do make assertions etc as it is your word against theirs, the ET rule on the balance of probability.

mooks

The original date for disclosure was June 2010, hence why it seems so unlikely now that they're presenting what may well be pivotal evidence, when initially they didn't present any evidence whatsoever (they originally stated that they intended to rely solely on my evidence - go figure...).

Their entire case may rely on this one piece of evidence - which is why it's so surprising that only now are they making reference to it. It just seems strange that after nearly two years, only now do they deem it relevant to their case - which is why I think it's been fabricated...

Ihatecameron

It just seems strange that after nearly two years, only now do they deem it relevant to their case - which is why I think it's been fabricated...

That will go against them, I am sure the ET will want to know why this alleged evidence was not submitted in the first place, this is what I mean about making assertions, you can do the same. The ET will rule in favour of the side that sounds plausible. You can also refuse to accept the evidence and they will have to ask the ET if it can be included, if the ET allows it, they will have to give you time to respond.

DVardysShadow

Ihatecameron wrote: »

You have to file all documents within a reasonable time, so the other side has time to respond to them.
Do make assertions etc as it is your word against theirs, the ET rule on the balance of probability.

It is a good point about the criterion for ruling. But I would still draw the line at not going in with assertion.

Perhaps the issue is one of terminology. An assertion to me is a statement which lacks any foundation. This should be avoided. The reason is that an ET or the opposition will spot the lack of foundation and the opposition will be merciless in exploiting it. The willingness to use material without any foundation will risk damaging the integrity of other evidence, so that the overall effect is net damage to the case.

mooks wrote: »

The original date for disclosure was June 2010, hence why it seems so unlikely now that they're presenting what may well be pivotal evidence, when initially they didn't present any evidence whatsoever (they originally stated that they intended to rely solely on my evidence - go figure...).

Their entire case may rely on this one piece of evidence - which is why it's so surprising that only now are they making reference to it. It just seems strange that after nearly two years, only now do they deem it relevant to their case - which is why I think it's been fabricated...

You are right to be suspicious.

And you would be right to point out the lateness of adding this and to raise the question of why, if their case pivots on it, it was not declared earlier.

And you would be right to draw the attention of the ET to any discrepancies which indicate that it is fabricated.

Getting these points across is far more important than just asserting that the document is a fabrication.

mooks

There are other bits of evidence as well - such as interview notes - that they're including that have never been referred to before.

I just checked my files and I've requested this evidence no fewer than 5 times - they're in no doubt just how important this is, and they're asking me to agree it without even seeing it? Pull the other one...