Removed...

ohreally

Hannah2210 wrote: »

is it really possible to go against a barrister not knowing any law. Have you ever attended any ET cases where someone defended themselves?

Yes and yes.

Attended a case a few years ago, chap and his sister presented their own case (other side had solicitor) and done very well, however trib ruled against the individual on a point of disputed law and awarded costs to other side - his only income was benefits.

hcb42

yes she can represent herself, however what would worry me would be your first post - close to suicide - time to decide if winning the battle is more important or not.

If she represents herself, she needs to be clear on the legal arguments, and not get too emotionally caught up (not easy I realise)

marybelle01

Hannah2210 wrote: »

Thank for the info. So it's possible my solicitor referred it to a barrister? I've read you can defend yourself, which some people do, and the tribunal will help with points of law. My mum knows the case inside out, but is it really possible to go against a barrister not knowing any law. Have you ever attended any ET cases where someone defended themselves?
Thanks again

A tribunal will absolutely NOT help you out on points of law. That is what your lawyer is for, and if you don't have one, that is your job. The tribunal will guide you on points of process. In other words, what you can and cannot do. The law is your problem. It is your case, your argument, and you have to win it.

Hannah2210

Oh that's worrying they lost on a point of law. . If we could we would leave it but in the job she does she can't apply for another job with a dismissal on her record. We're doing purely to clear her name, not for any financial gain. she can be very professional and diplomatic when she has to be, but I would worry she would get emotionally involved when people bareface lie. Maybe no win no fee is an optional since we're not doing it for financial gain, so how ever big they're cut is wouldn't be an issue.

The funny thing is, the employer has made a point to say her clinical skills are excellent, as they know they could never get her on this since she never has had a patient complain in all her yrs of working there and the amount of colleagues she has help. You would think the care profession was all about giving the best possible care!

Thanks for your comments

Hannah2210

marybelle01 wrote: »

A tribunal will absolutely NOT help you out on points of law. That is what your lawyer is for, and if you don't have one, that is your job. The tribunal will guide you on points of process. In other words, what you can and cannot do. The law is your problem. It is your case, your argument, and you have to win it.

Someone actually told me not to worry about the law as the tribunal know the law and is used to people having to defend themselves and don't know law. I did think that was a bit strange as what would the point in the solicitors.

Think we'll try the no win no fee thing. Does anyone know if the pre hearing would require a solicitor? We've been told it's just to out things in chronicle order, so we're hoping this part is not really about law and we can go ourselves whilst we look for a new solicitor (she isn't keen to postpone)

ohreally

Hannah2210 wrote: »

Oh that's worrying they lost on a point of law

The point in question was not employment law but that of an alleged criminal act against the employer. The individual protested his innocence (he was aware of the accusation) blaming it on others unknown.

marybelle01

Hannah2210 wrote: »

Someone actually told me not to worry about the law as the tribunal know the law and is used to people having to defend themselves and don't know law. I did think that was a bit strange as what would the point in the solicitors.

Think we'll try the no win no fee thing. Does anyone know if the pre hearing would require a solicitor? We've been told it's just to out things in chronicle order, so we're hoping this part is not really about law and we can go ourselves whilst we look for a new solicitor (she isn't keen to postpone)

I may be wrong - but I don't think you have a cat in hells chance. Sorry, but having been refused representation it is very unlikely that a new set of lawyers is going to pick up a claim mid-way when you have already been told your chances of winning are low. And when the employer finds out your lawyers have dumped you, they will smell blood.


You might google "the redundancy forum" and ask the question there.

Hannah2210

marybelle01 wrote: »

I may be wrong - but I don't think you have a cat in hells chance. Sorry, but having been refused representation it is very unlikely that a new set of lawyers is going to pick up a claim mid-way when you have already been told your chances of winning are low. And when the employer finds out your lawyers have dumped you, they will smell blood.


You might google "the redundancy forum" and ask the question there.

There must be so something that the solicitors have seen though for them to think its a strong case. Some of the barristers report also isn't right. For example she said someone said such and such a thing which agrees with the employer, but their signed statement says something different, opposite of what the employer was trying to make out. We can look for no win no fee, but we're pessimists anyway so if they won't take it on, we know plenty about nhs policies, the main thing was to get the ET to hear it and reveal some of the terrible things there.

Thanks for everyone taking the time to comment

Moto2

Has she followed the 'Whistleblowing' procedures?

http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/research/briefing-papers/SN06490/nhs-whistleblowing-procedures-in-england

ohreally

Hannah2210 wrote: »

we know plenty about nhs policies, the main thing was to get the ET to hear it and reveal some of the terrible things there

Perhaps, but bear in mind your mum has been through a disciplinary hearing and lost, been through the appeals process and lost. A tribunal hearing will be a tough nut to crack and may have a toll on her state of mind.

What was the employers case leading to dismissal? What did she rely on to overturn the decision at appeal?