Employment Tribunal Advice Please

steampowered

Converse20 wrote: »

Do you think it's to late to look into the mckenzie friend stuff?

Yes I do. If there is a hearing on Monday I doubt there is much point getting a McKenzie friend now (personally I don't think they add much value anyway).

It is probably best to use the weekend preparing for the hearing as best you can - making sure you are familiar with the skeleton arguments, have a basic understanding of the law that applies to your case, and thinking about what questions you need to ask the employer's witnesses on cross-examination.

Crazy_Jamie

Mersey wrote: »

They should have served the docs by 4pm on 25th, so you can point out the R's failure to comply with the Directions provided in the Order.

Have I missed mention in this thread of the 25th being a deadline for further disclosure? I would have thought that disclosure would have been completed long before now. Unless there is a specified deadline of the 25th those documents are well out of time. In any event serving that volume of documentation so close to the hearing is poor conduct. If it's irrelevant it shouldn't have been served at all, but serving a couple of books' worth of documents on a litigant in person effectively one working day before a hearing is something that I would expect the Judge to take a dim view of.

Converse20

So, the first day of the hearing was actually today. I said it was Monday to try change details in case anyone was looking at this from the other side. (Just because your paranoid, don't mean they're not after you)

So, obviously this means that the documents were sent less than 24 hours before the hearing (closer to 12). This is unreasonable and didn't give me enough time to digest the information and to be able to be questioned on it by a barrister.

I stated at the start of the hearing that I requested a strike out order due to this. I stated that even if I managed to read and digest the information, that I wouldn't have a fair opportunity to put forward a legal argument. I also stated that if the judge wished to remove the documents, I didn't agree with this either. There could well be documents in there that supported my case, if they exist, why weren't they declared earlier.

I had also applied (earlier, by email) for the Ordinary unfair dismissal to be heard following it being removed from the claim.

The judge directed that this would be heard in today's hearing.

The judge has agreed with my points on this, and has allowed me to make a new unfair dismissal claim. Obviously the respondent will say that it is out of time and we have a further preliminary hearing scheduled to hear this so as to decide where the burden of proof lies.

Mersey_2

Converse20 wrote: »

The order says that the respondent must, and the claimant may, send a skeleton argument by the 25th Jan.

crazy Jamie - a couple of pages ago was where the OP referred to the deadline for Skel As. But I agree with what you say re the R's appallingly late purported disclosure.


Converse - well done on your first day. Hopefully it was less daunting than you may have feared.


I assume the R's will be liable for any adjournment(s) and extra hearing due to their conduct when Costs are considered.

Converse20

Actually they have threatened me with costs for pursuing the Ordinary Unfair Dismissal part and obviously the delay that comes with that. New hearing scheduled for April so just lots of preparation to be done now.

Including consulting with a solicitor.

Converse20

So, the respondent had one of thier witnesses (my previous area manager) sitting in for the close hearing yesterday. Is that acceptable? At the time I didn't think to much of it, but now, surely he shouldn't have been in there.

steampowered

What do you mean it was a "close hearing"?

ET hearings are generally open to the public, anyone is entitled to watch.

Converse20

steampowered wrote: »

What do you mean it was a "close hearing"?

ET hearings are generally open to the public, anyone is entitled to watch.

This was a closed hearing. It said so on a paper sign on the door.

The issue is more that he is a witness. Should he be in there?

It was Day 1 of 6, (now postponed) this was the day for reading. It didn't get to that point however.

Quite a relevant witness, and lots was discussed about evidence and the case in general.

annandale

Could you not contact the tribunal offices and ask for clarification if he should have been there or not

Converse20

annandale wrote: »

Could you not contact the tribunal offices and ask for clarification if he should have been there or not

I will do. They aren't open until Monday, and I thought someone would know on here.