Employment Tribunal - Case Management Decision Help

Masomnia

The judge won't sit until 10 am, and it's very normal for them to have no idea what the case is about. They then need to read key bits of the bundle before they hear any evidence. Hour for lunch, 4.30 finish. Anything beyond a simple case and you do need days.

As to the extra cost they probably have insurance paying anyway so I don't think that's a factor.

I don't think it's a tactic.

I do think it is worth you paying for some advice in the run up to the hearing to get your case reviewed and discus what angles you should go with in the hearing. Judges are sympathetic, they will (usually) help you, and you won't be expected to know the law inside out. But being cross examined is stressful, and it's very easy to go off at a tangent with irrelevancies when you are cross examining yourself.

Good luck anyway.

HMO976

The telephone number has changed to 0300 123 1024. I've edited my previous post to reflect this.

As my claim has been accepted they suggested that I rang the tribunal office dealing with it. Their system cannot see all the information.

The tribunal office dealing with the claim was very helpful. They answered a number of procedural questions that I had. The answer to my question regarding the 'order of disclosure' was the CMD does not stop me from requesting it. But the judge/tribunal could decide to wait until the CMD before dealing with it.

lincroft1710

HMO976 wrote: »

I did see an employment solicitor before making my claim. Had I worked there for two years he would have taken the case on, on a 'no win, no basis'. From what I could gather, with two years service he couldn't have lost. He confirmed what I suspected that I had a case on health and safety grounds and as such didn't need two years service. But it wasn't strong enough for him to take on, on a 'no win, no fee' basis.

That last sentence is very telling. If a NWNF solicitor turns a case down, it is fairly certain that the case has serious weaknesses. So you may win, but it will be an uphill struggle.

steampowered

The main issue that affects the length of a hearing is the number of witnesses that are going to be called.

HMO976 wrote: »

I have been reliably informed that a case cannot be thrown out at a CMD. With that in mind I have two questions which hopefully somebody can help me with?

I don't think that is correct. Cases can and do get thrown out at the CMD stage.

However, this would usually be at the request of the Defendant and you would usually expect to see a formal application for a strike-out if that is to be on the agenda. A Defendant should only request this if they have very strong grounds for getting the case thrown out at an early stage.

1) I'm struggling to see an advantage to the CMD for my employers? If they are successful they have just increased their costs four fold.

If the employer is planning to call witnesses, the hearing will need to be a few days.

There are also other possible reasons why CMDs are required, e.g. any of the witnesses who left the company may need witness attendance orders. Or the defendant has a view on the timetable for the disclosure process. Or the defendant has a view on the timetable for exchanging witness statements.

2) When the tribunal accepts your case they send you conformation and a time scale of things to be done. Naturally we won't have to prepare case documentation by the specified dates due to the fact the tribunal date will change. But I have requested documentation from my former employers to help with my case. I gave them what I perceived to be a reasonable 14 days to respond. That time has passed and they haven't responded. My next move is to apply to the employment tribunal for an order of disclosure. Will the CMD effect this in any way?

I don't understand why you think the dates are no longer relevant? If the dates are in a Tribunal order you have to comply.

Please understand that the Tribunal will set a timetable for disclosure. The idea of this is that both parties need to hand over their disclosure list at the same time.

You can't force the other side to make early disclosure.

A request for a disclosure order would be premature unless the deadline for disclosure has already passed.

steampowered

lincroft1710 wrote: »

That last sentence is very telling. If a NWNF solicitor turns a case down, it is fairly certain that the case has serious weaknesses. So you may win, but it will be an uphill struggle.

It depends really. There are many other reasons why a NWNF solicitor might decline a case. Some NWNF solicitors just cherry pick the easiest and simplest cases.

The NWNF solicitor might feel they don't have the necessary expertise to take the case (which is possible for a health+safety hearing).

Or the NWNF solicitor might feel the case is too much work (e.g. if they expect a 4 day hearing, that is more costly than a 1 day hearing).

Or the NWNF solicitor might feel that the chance of success is high, but the level of compensation payable is unlikely to be enough to cover their fees.

steampowered

nicechap wrote: »

Not at all, even with a 1 day hearing they can use expert witnesses.

(Don't get sucked into a side debate about costs)

I think you'd need a CMD to appoint an expert.

The CMD will normally cover issues such as who instructs the expert (the Tribunal will normally prefer a single joint expert to be appointed, with the parties agreeing a terms of reference, rather than each party appointing its own expert).

The CMD would also need to cover the deadline for disclosure of the experts report, deadline for asking questions, and whether the expert is to be required to attend the hearing or whether their evidence will be a written report only.

There is lots of procedural stuff that can realistically only be managed through a CMD, you can't just rock up at the Tribunal with an expert in tow.

sangie595

Cases can and do get thrown out at CMD. Where a claimant has refused mediation, as in this case, that can happen because meditation often sorts out the cases that are weak and they don't get this far. What is actually more common is that the judge will consider the prospect of a win, and if they do not believe you have a strong enough cases to hear, they will either require a court deposit of money to hear the case, or warn you that preceding may incline them to agree a costs order. Listen carefully to the judge. They won't be quite as blunt as threatening you financially if you proceed, but they will make it clear. Some litigants in person, however, aren't always listening!

fira

Good to see you back, sangie595.

HMO976

Thank you all for your replies. The following should hopefully clear up a few things.

1) I requested documents from my employer to help with my case. Personnel file, job description etc. Some of the documents I have requested are legal requirements. I know they don't exist. If I request them now and they don't provide them but they are produced at a later date (once they have fabricated them) it strengthens my case. I think it should be called requesting an 'order' not 'an order for disclosure' as I wrongly stated. Sorry for the confusion.

2) The CMD is on the same date as the Tribunal was meant to be. The documentation such as 'witness statements' you are meant to send to each other by certain dates will obviously no longer apply as there will be a new trial date.

3) The person who I spoke to on the phone did confirm I was wrong in my thinking with regard to the case not being thrown out at a CMD. But as steampower said it would usually be via a formal application from the respondent.

From what I now know I think the CMD helps the respondent in the following ways,

1) Time. After speaking to the people at the tribunal office it is likely that the case now won't be heard until 2019. If I get through the CMD. I'm sure by the time we get there risk assessments etc which don't exist now will by then.
2) From what you have all said. To be able to request expert witnesses.
3) To make me look bad. From previous experience some judges don't have a lot of time for litigants in person. They just see them as an annoyance. To me it's a very simple case. I refused to work in a way which was going to endanger lives and because I wouldn't I got sacked. But it looks like it's going to be made very complex. No doubt deliberately. My lack of knowledge and experience isn't going to help me in the courts eyes.

I do have a very clear, realistic and achievable plan in mind. From what sangie595 has said not wanting to enter into mediation at this stage is a mistake (not that the other side has tried either). My plan was to wait until after the CMD because I think that if I get through it, it will put me in a stronger position. Which I still believe to be correct. But thats no good to me if I can't get through it without the case being thrown out.

sangie595

I have utterly no idea about what the case is about, nor do I need to.

It is not true that some judges do not have time for litigants in person. This view derives from people misunderstanding what tribunals are about. Judges cannot construct a case for litigants, nor can they operate on rules about what the world thinks is "fair". Judges favour neither one side nor the other, but they definitely favour what the law says. Many litigants in person fail to appreciate that it is their job to present their case, or get help to do so, just as it is the employers. The weighing scales are unequally balanced more often than not, because employers tend to have more money. That is not the judges fault.

Litigants in person frequently think their case is very simple. There is no such thing as a simple case. Thinking like that is why so many litigants in person lose.

Hopefully, you won't lose. But it is up to you to show why you shouldn't. And it would appear that you'll have plenty of time to prepare to do that. If you go into this thinking that it isn't fair, that you'll lose, or that the system is stacked against you, then you certainly will lose. Litigants in person do win. They do so by having a good case and preparing well. If your case stacks up, the best barrister in the world can't gainsay it. And if it really is as simple as you believe, how could it not stack up?