Support needed for my ET Claim - Disability Discrimination + Constructive Dismissal

MacMickster

Crazy_Jamie wrote: »

These sorts of letter are very common nowadays, but are largely scaremongering. Unlikely the county court, you cannot have a costs order made against you in the Tribunal simply because you failed to beat an offer made by the other side. It takes much more than that. It is fair for sangie to warn you that it does happen, but there usually has to be something more for an order to be made, such as clearly unreasonable or vexatious conduct. Generally speaking costs orders are still unusual.

Not always just scaremongering. This report published yesterday http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-40572169 is regarding an employer seeking £577K from a former employee in respect of their costs in successfully defending an unfair dismissal claim at a tribunal.

While this is certainly unusual (hence why it gets reported nationally) and probably at the top end of the scale of what could happen, I don't think that it is fair to the OP to simply gloss over the prospect of a claim for costs if they don't win their case at a tribunal.

Crazy_Jamie

MacMickster wrote: »

Not always just scaremongering. This report published yesterday http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-40572169 is regarding an employer seeking £577K from a former employee in respect of their costs in successfully defending an unfair dismissal claim at a tribunal.

While this is certainly unusual (hence why it gets reported nationally) and probably at the top end of the scale of what could happen, I don't think that it is fair to the OP to simply gloss over the prospect of a claim for costs if they don't win their case at a tribunal.

I'm not 'glossing over' a potential claim for costs, and I do acknowledge that it is important that threats of costs should be properly considered, but equally linking to an individual extreme example on the BBC website (and indeed, one where an award hasn't actually been made yet) is hardly helpful either. You refer to that as 'probably' at the top end of the scale as to what could happen, but there's no 'probably' about it. It is right at the top end of what might happen, and therefore almost certainly has no bearing on the OP here.

I agree that costs warning letters are not always scaremongering, which is why I put 'largely'. The reality is that such letters are a common tactic used by Respondent solicitors against Claimants even in situations where those solicitors know that there is no realistic prospect of them recovering their costs even if they win. Even more when against Claimants that are not legally represented. Of course anyone receiving a costs warning letter should properly consider it, but it is equally important to be aware that costs orders in the Employment Tribunal are still unusual.

MacMickster

Crazy_Jamie wrote: »

I'm not 'glossing over' a potential claim for costs, and I do acknowledge that it is important that threats of costs should be properly considered, but equally linking to an individual extreme example on the BBC website (and indeed, one where an award hasn't actually been made yet) is hardly helpful either. You refer to that as 'probably' at the top end of the scale as to what could happen, but there's no 'probably' about it. It is right at the top end of what might happen, and therefore almost certainly has no bearing on the OP here.

I agree that costs warning letters are not always scaremongering, which is why I put 'largely'. The reality is that such letters are a common tactic used by Respondent solicitors against Claimants even in situations where those solicitors know that there is no realistic prospect of them recovering their costs even if they win. Even more when against Claimants that are not legally represented. Of course anyone receiving a costs warning letter should properly consider it, but it is equally important to be aware that costs orders in the Employment Tribunal are still unusual.

My experience of the MSE forum is that many who post queries are simply looking for support of their own position. Unless alternative perspectives are made very clear (including an extreme example) then words such as "largely" will be interpreted as "always".

Whilst cost orders ARE very unusual the OP needs to do their own research. Does their employer (or solicitor) have form in this area? Do they suspect that their former employer may try to be vindictive and make an example of them as a warning to others?

In the case that I have referred to, whether or not the employer is ultimately successful in their claim for costs, I suspect that they will consequently face far fewer tribunal claims from sacked employees in the future. A deterrent effect. The former employee is probably going to face a period of extreme stress in her life that she certainly never envisaged when she brought her claim to the tribunal.

The OP clearly feels that they have been particularly unfairly treated by their employer and, at this stage, their tribunal claim is a matter of principle. I suspect that the OP is not particularly well off, or else they would have proper legal representation for the tribunal. They do need to be fully aware that there is a possible financial downside which could, just possibly, be ruinous for them before deciding whether to accept the offer made by the former employer.

sangie595

MacMickster wrote: »

My experience of the MSE forum is that many who post queries are simply looking for support of their own position. Unless alternative perspectives are made very clear (including an extreme example) then words such as "largely" will be interpreted as "always".

Whilst cost orders ARE very unusual the OP needs to do their own research. Does their employer (or solicitor) have form in this area? Do they suspect that their former employer may try to be vindictive and make an example of them as a warning to others?

In the case that I have referred to, whether or not the employer is ultimately successful in their claim for costs, I suspect that they will consequently face far fewer tribunal claims from sacked employees in the future. A deterrent effect. The former employee is probably going to face a period of extreme stress in her life that she certainly never envisaged when she brought her claim to the tribunal.

The OP clearly feels that they have been particularly unfairly treated by their employer and, at this stage, their tribunal claim is a matter of principle. I suspect that the OP is not particularly well off, or else they would have proper legal representation for the tribunal. They do need to be fully aware that there is a possible financial downside which could, just possibly, be ruinous for them before deciding whether to accept the offer made by the former employer.

I think that's a very realistic stance to take. I also prefer to make the risks transparent. We have multiple posts daily from people who have decided that they have rights because they read it somewhere, and the actual fact is that they don't and they misread it. And possibilities often turn into certainties in people's minds.

Crazy_Jamie

MacMickster wrote: »

My experience of the MSE forum is that many who post queries are simply looking for support of their own position. Unless alternative perspectives are made very clear (including an extreme example) then words such as "largely" will be interpreted as "always".

Whilst cost orders ARE very unusual the OP needs to do their own research. Does their employer (or solicitor) have form in this area? Do they suspect that their former employer may try to be vindictive and make an example of them as a warning to others?

In the case that I have referred to, whether or not the employer is ultimately successful in their claim for costs, I suspect that they will consequently face far fewer tribunal claims from sacked employees in the future. A deterrent effect. The former employee is probably going to face a period of extreme stress in her life that she certainly never envisaged when she brought her claim to the tribunal.

The OP clearly feels that they have been particularly unfairly treated by their employer and, at this stage, their tribunal claim is a matter of principle. I suspect that the OP is not particularly well off, or else they would have proper legal representation for the tribunal. They do need to be fully aware that there is a possible financial downside which could, just possibly, be ruinous for them before deciding whether to accept the offer made by the former employer.

I understand your position, and the part I've underlined is a good point. In my view the risks of an adverse costs order in the Employment Tribunal are often over stated by members in this forum, hence why I took the approach of noting how unlikely it is and then explaining what is actually required for one to be made. My concern is that people will be scared off by these warnings when they have no need to be, but I absolutely take the point that there is a also the danger of people ploughing ahead in a case where they are genuinely at risk of costs. Ultimately it's about trying to find some sort of balance in a situation where we can never fully know the circumstances of a particular case or indeed the mindset of the individual asking for help, and views will always differ on how we go about doing that.

CYPER

I read everything with great care. Thanks for your comments.

Another question: How do I properly include Case Law into my witness statement. What is the right format? Examples would be best.

Thank you.

sangie595

CYPER wrote: »

I read everything with great care. Thanks for your comments.

Another question: How do I properly include Case Law into my witness statement. What is the right format? Examples would be best.

Thank you.

Your witness statement is a statement of what you witnessed. Did you actually witness any case law? No? Then it doesn't belong in there A witness statement is not legal argument. You make your legal argument to the tribunal separately.

Undervalued

sangie595 wrote: »

Your witness statement is a statement of what you witnessed. Did you actually witness any case law? No? Then it doesn't belong in there A witness statement is not legal argument. You make your legal argument to the tribunal separately.

Indeed.

OP, is there no way you can get some professional help with this? Whilst people can and do successfully represent themselves at employment tribunals, discrimination cases do tend to be more complex.

CYPER

sangie595 wrote: »

Your witness statement is a statement of what you witnessed. Did you actually witness any case law? No? Then it doesn't belong in there A witness statement is not legal argument. You make your legal argument to the tribunal separately.

Thanks. So then how it is best to apply another case to my own case. Do I just mention it to the Judge?

sangie595

CYPER wrote: »

Thanks. So then how it is best to apply another case to my own case. Do I just mention it to the Judge?

I am sorry, but employment tribunal by remote control just isn't possible. You cannot expect people here to guide you through even the most basic of steps, every inch of the way, and without any knowledge of anything. A quick "point in question" is one thing, but the level of the questions that you are repeatedly asking says that you are totally unprepared for going to a tribunal. This board really isn't designed for what you want. As far as I know, there isn't anywhere that is.

This book is costly, but it's good https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B00HCEWBJU/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1634&creative=19450&creativeASIN=B00HCEWBJU&linkCode=as2&!!!!!emplotribucla-21
.. and past that I must echo Undervalued's comment - you really need to look for some method of getting advice or support. Or you must do a lot more research yourself. We cannot answer a flow of questions about multiple aspects in the detail that you want. Sorry, but hand holding of this degree isn't possible.