Respondent adding previusly undisclosed documents to ET bundle...

Ihatecameron

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

I take your point, it looks bad if you suddenly start making allegations out of the blue, stick to the facts and you can't go wrong.

Ihatecameron

mooks wrote: »

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...

Agree to nothing, inform them that everything they want to add at a later date must go through the ET for approval, if it is accepted, the ET will send you a copy.

mooks

Ihatecameron wrote: »

I take your point, it looks bad if you suddenly start making allegations out of the blue, stick to the facts and you can't go wrong.

Absolutely - I'm sure the Judge would really go to town on me if I just made a random allegation that the evidence was falsified, so I'm setting out the points we've touched on in my letter to the ET.

Basically:

• Evidence showing rationale for selection for redundancy was not presented when initially advised of selection;
• Respondent refused to present evidence at redundancy appeal meeting;
• Evidence not present in personnel file - which also appeared to be heavily edited;
• Evidence not mentioned in first index of evidence, provided mid-2010; and
• Evidence not included in draft bundle of documents provided in August 2010

On the grounds of probability, I get the feeling it didn't actually exist until recently...

So, I'm writing my letter to the Respondent now, but am choosing not to say that I believe the evidence was fabricated - I'm putting that in my letter to the ET instead. In the Respondent's letter I'm just saying that I can't agree evidence I've never seen before, and hopefully I'll hear something from the ET in the meantime about my falisification claim.

DVardysShadow

mooks wrote: »

... So, I'm writing my letter to the Respondent now, but am choosing not to say that I believe the evidence was fabricated - I'm putting that in my letter to the ET instead. In the Respondent's letter I'm just saying that I can't agree evidence I've never seen before, and hopefully I'll hear something from the ET in the meantime about my falisification claim.

Be careful. Very careful. Anything which is communicated to the ET - or to any court - must be open to challenge by the other side. Not to do so really counts as a dirty trick.

mooks

DVardysShadow wrote: »

Be careful. Very careful. Anything which is communicated to the ET - or to any court - must be open to challenge by the other side. Not to do so really counts as a dirty trick.

Point taken - in that case I think I'll advise the Respondent that I've written to the ET to make the assertion but only to provide a brief overvew of the reasons why (i.e. they've been given numerous opportunitie to provide it so far, but have failed).

mooks

Well, letters have been sent to both the Employment Tribunal Service and to the Respondent, so we can only wait and see what happens now.

Thank you everyone for your advice and support - I'll come back to this thread if I hear anything newsworthy...

Oh, and apologies for the glaring misspelling of 'previously' in the title - how embarrassing...

mooks

Interesting - the Respondent has clearly read my letter accusing them of fabricating evidence, as they've sent me a letter in response to some of the other issues raised in that letter, but they've not said a word about my allegation...

No advice yet from the ET Service though... At the moment I'm thinking I'll just adjust my witness statement to include these issues to make sure they're recorded and hopefully discussed...