In court with ex-employer

embob74

I fear if I ask for any more advice I will have to start paying MSE bods a fee! but here I go again..
Being taken to court by ex-employer for leaving work and they had to pay another member of staff to cover my shifts.
They originally claimed £312 which is exactly the amount I would have earned if I worked the 4 shifts so I put my defence as they had not actually incurred any costs over and above their usual staff wages.
Received the allocation questionnaire back and they are now saying they paid a trainee AND a member of staff to supervise.
I have compiled a LONG defence which hopefully shows how I am not liable in lots of ways but I was today told by the court I have to send a copy of documents I will rely on to the claimant (ex-employer) before I can lodge the allocation questionnaire.
Is this correct? The employer has not sent me anything, certainly no proof they have paid any more than the usual 1 staff member.
I don't want to send them the documents as they have already changed their original story once they realised I was not liable for usual staffing costs and I fear they will amend their story again when they see my defence.
Do I need to request proof of their alleged costs? I'm hoping the court won't just take their word for it and I'm pretty sure they are lying.

Annisele

I'm not a lawyer, so when one of those comes along listen to them.

However, it certainly sounds correct - and in your shoes I think I'd be more inclined to trust court staff than random strangers on the internet! Essentially the court's job is to look at the evidence both sides provide - including the documents each side is relying on - and then make a decision. If one side provides documents and the other doesn't, I'd imagine it's generally easier for the court to find in favour of the person who can back up what they say.

Courts aren't like TV, and usually you do have to disclose your evidence in advance to give the other side chance to mull over it.

If you don't believe the court staff, you can probably find something in the Civil Procedure Rules to confirm one way or the other - you could always ask them where you should start looking.

ohreally

Annisele wrote: »

I'm not a lawyer, so when one of those comes along listen to them

And how would you determin one on a web forum, take them at their word?

Mistral001

I am not familiar with the procedure, but by "documents" I suppose they mean payslips, bank statements or bank lodgement slips, P45, etc. and not your defense outline or detailed descriptions of what happened. In other words official items that cannot be in dispute. You might not actually have many such documents, but it does not mean that you do not have a defense. I could be wrong about this and maybe others can correct me.

I would not worry about the other side lying. All you have to do is make sure that you tell the truth.

Annisele

ohreally wrote: »

And how would you determin one on a web forum, take them at their word?

Fair enough!

I was actually thinking of SarEl; I don't know who she is but I reckon it's more likely than not that she really is a barrister. However, I wouldn't claim that I know that beyond reasonable doubt. And even if I did know for certain she was a barrister, I wouldn't rely on her advice if she hadn't see the papers.

ohreally

I have no idea if SarEl is a barrister or a barista. Perhaps if an individual claims professional standing, they should produce a copy of their qualifications to board admin.

The above is not calling into question the integrity of that individual, I'm simply using your example.

KiKi

Whilst I accept that anyone can pretend to be anything on an internet forum, I think most people could make a sensible judgement that, based on posts that are made and the knowledge of the individual, whether or not they are a lawyer.

We all know that when someone on this forum refers to a 'lawyer', they're referring zzzLazyDaisy or SarEl! (I appreciate that LD isn't practising, though.)

KiKi

Sambucus_Nigra

Aye, but to be fair, we've had people on here pronouncing themselves legal/employment law experts and their advice was just plain wrong....one had employment lawyer or something in their user name and he was a complete disaster.

KiKi

Sambucus_Nigra wrote: »

Aye, but to be fair, we've had people on here pronouncing themselves legal/employment law experts and their advice was just plain wrong....one had employment lawyer or something in their user name and he was a complete disaster.

Emplawyer, wasn't it?! Or something! I think he was outed pretty quickly by SarEl!

I do agree that you can't be sure, absolutely, and that some people pose as something they're not. And as ever, no-one should ever rely on anything on here in that sense.

That poster, though, had only been on for a matter of days. I was referring more to those posters who've been around a long time, who regularly post and are very much taken for who they say they are (whether they be lawyers or anyone else).

But yes, you can't ever take it for granted.
KiKi

snowcat53

Form your own judgement as to whether someone seems to know what they're talking about. It helps if advice is backed up with evidence and references which you can verify yourself. But at the end of the day it is an internet forum - Caveat emptor.

SarEl

Sambucus_Nigra wrote: »

Aye, but to be fair, we've had people on here pronouncing themselves legal/employment law experts and their advice was just plain wrong....one had employment lawyer or something in their user name and he was a complete disaster.

Aye, but it was me primarily who pointed out how bad his advice was!

I apprecaite the points made about claims to professional standing - but I never tell people that they should believe me because I am a (currently not practicing either) barrister, and in fact I rarely mention it at all. I do these forums because I can give people some guidance, but I have utterly no desire for anyone to know who I am. Nor would it be of any particular help - even lawyers can make mistakes, and on forums like this our advice is exactly that - advice based on what the poster says and not in any form legal opinion. You will note that both LazyDaisy and I tell people to take legal advice if we think it appropriate - we never presume to give it on a site such as this.

But on the OP's question - and I said this last time she asked it - it isn't my area of law, but you always comply with a courts requests, and if you are not clear what they are asking then you phone them up and they will explain it to you. The court clerks in county courts are very helpful and will explain anything you do not understand.