Let’s say someone with a disability or health issue means they’re prone to reacting defensively to criticism eg someone with ADHD and they have rejection sensitivity dysphoria. This causes them to lash out at someone who makes a complaint about a breach of the equality act. Would this be victimisation?
There’s a key document (an investigation report) not disclosed in full in my case, and I’ve resigned to the fact that I won’t get it and I’ll have to ask the tribunal to draw adverse inferences from its omission. But if I don’t know what is contained in it, in what way can I ask an adverse inference to be drawn? Do I just ask for the best inference that suits my claim to be drawn? How about where there is evidence which does not support my case that has been disclosed - can I make the case that in the absence of the investigation report, the evidence which has been disclosed should be ignored/given little weight?
Thanks!
Treasury approval is infamously required for the monetary amount in a public sector settlement agreement above a certain limit, but how about non-financial items, say, provision and wording of an apology, confidentiality clauses, judgement by consent etc?
Let’s say one side refuses to do anything, even if it’s quite a simple thing, unless ordered by the Tribunal (which as we know, they can take months to respond), what’s actually the worst that can happen? I get that the Tribunal will be annoyed but technically, the uncooperative party isn’t doing anything wrong, right?
After initially confirming attendance, it now seems some of R’s witnesses won’t be attending the FH (no particular reason, just that they’re no longer employed with R and aren’t responding). I only found out shortly before the FH. Some of their defence relies on these witnesses so I’m unclear how they will now defend the claim.
What are the implications of this situation? I have been advancing my case on basis that they were attending. Eg I have been anticipating what they would say, preparing cross examination questions, disclosed documents which would challenge their accounts etc.
Also, does the Respondent owe a duty to notify me / tribunal asap? It sounds like they’ve known a while.
I have a one day PH to decide on anonymity order, claim amendment, disclosure issues, LOI, among other things.
Is it advisable to get Counsel or can a LIP manage it themselves?
I’ve got a disability and slow processing speeds. I find it difficult to make a decision on the spot. Will anyone mind that I take my time making a decision, or if I don’t make a decision at all and dwell on it?
(England)
Interested to hear whether people have had success in getting anonymity order following the F vs J case. I think BM mentioned a while back that there’s not been the uptick in approvals anticipated following the F vs J case and that some EJs have been pushing back.
I am at a stage in the process where I’m reflecting about what I want and what I can practically achieve.
I have a strong case where there have been a number of admissions already, but there remains a time limitation dispute and many other claims denied.
Sometimes I feel SO angry at my treatment by individuals and the coverup by the organisation that I’m determined to go all the way to FH. It pains my soul at how individuals (plural) could treat another person so badly during times of crisis. But then other times I think, I just want to move on with my life.
Would be interested to hear how others dealt with a similar internal monologue when it came to settlement discussions or progressing their claim
In what situations would a judgement by consent be a favourable outcome to parties? And how do parties decide which claims to mutually consent liability for or the remedy amount?
Trying to find out more about this but very little information available online.
Cheers
Is it better to have a dedicated standalone section in your witness statement to describe your injury to feelings, or to talk about the individual injury to feelings after each discriminatory event when providing a timeline of everything you witnessed.
I note you can only claim injury to feelings for successful claims but there’s a lonnnggg timeline for my claim that if I do a piece meal approach, my witness statement would be very long and repetitive.
How have people used AI to help with witness statements and how do you rate the quality?
It’s taken me hours just to summarise a few emails into my witness statements (there’s hundreds more emails). I put the emails into AI to summarise and didn’t think the output was that bad.
Let’s say with this example:
I was invited to a meeting (see pg x for meeting invite), and agreed to attend (see pg x for my acceptance of calendar invite). At the meeting we discussed a, b, c, d (see pg x for my meeting notes and the meeting minutes the respondent sent to me).
Is this too much referencing? Also do you need to provide a summary of the minutes or can you just say “the minutes can be found at pg x and my notes can be found at page x) without providing a summary?
I’m trying to get the balance right of how much detail my witness statement goes into so any pointers appreciated. My statement covers a lengthy time period and number of claims.
Does it mean you’re more disadvantaged compared to other people, or does it mean a specific disadvantage which is related to your disability?
Trying to get my head around indirect discrimination. Wondering if there can be a PCP where staff are bullied, and if I have a communication issue, can I argue that puts me at a particular disadvantage compared to other staff (who might be able to stand up for themselves more easily)?
How does one determine what is a “particular disadvantage”?
When I set out to raise a claim at the Employment Tribunal, I knew it would be stressful but one good thing I thought was that at least the Tribunal has formal rules and deadlines which are written down which would make things manageable. Boy, was I wrong!
Here are some unfriendly ND features based on my experience so far. Anyone got anything else to add to the list?
- the Tribunal has its own set of social rules and social expectations. You are meant to just ‘know’ what is relevant, ‘know’ what you are allowed to challenge your opponent on, ‘know’ what is the right amount of detail in a ‘Particulars of Claim’ (whatever that is), etc. if you get it wrong, your (legally represented) opponent who does know the social rules has an opportunity to chastise you and you look like an idiot.
- rules do not literally mean what they say. That CMO which says you must disclose “all relevant documents” by x date? What it actually means is, you should disclose something but if you don’t feel like disclosing a critical document, that’s totally ok and if my opponent has a problem with it, they will have to waste their time/money and get their mind-reading goggles on and guess what their opponent might be hiding to make a specific disclosure request etc etc. those who exert all their energy in trying to comply with near-impossible deadlines at great sacrifice to other things in life, are actually disadvantaging themselves. Put your feet up and go on holiday instead!
- “disability” and “ill health” seem to mean different things when the Tribunal makes a judgement about whether your employer has provided a reasonable adjustment, VS deciding whether you’re submitted your ET1 on time. Concepts such as “meltdowns”, “overwhelm” etc are entirely relevant for the former but seem alien for the latter and unless you’re in a coma and physically not able to write an email, then as far as the Tribunal was concerned, it was “reasonably practicable” for you to submit your claim on time.
- deadlines for orders have little meaning and if there are any queries on clarity or one party refuses to meet the deadline, you are just meant to deal with the situation, until the time the Tribunal comes to provide (retrospective) guidance and direction, however long that may be. Eg if the Respondent does not disclose an important document (or make any disclosure at all), you still have to continue writing your witness statement.
- deadlines can be extended very, very close to the Final Hearing and when you do get the direction to comply with a revised deadline, you’re meant to drop whatever you’re doing in life to comply with very short deadlines. Likewise, if you’re the receiver, you’re meant to read and digest at lightning speed. I’ve seen cases where witness statements aren’t exchanged until a week before which is absolutely fricking insane.
- There is virtually no case or behaviour management anymore. your opponent can swear at you. Call you an idiot. Or do nothing at all and miss every single deadline. And you just have to wait months and months for the Tribunal to respond. All that time you’ve spent researching Da Rules and concepts such as “unless orders” and “strike out applications” was totally redundant and you’ll be flushing money/time down the toilet in applying your knowledge. I’ve been waiting 6+ months for the Tribunal to deal with my applications, by which time I’ll have my final hearing.
Source: I’m at London Central.
My claim is based on lengthy chronology of events and I’ve seen some tips online that a witness statement can be structured around the list of issue headings. I wasn’t sure if that means I should leave the headings for everyone to see or is this tip for drafting purposes only so should be removed once finalised?
Also, where a Respondent concedes an issue eg a protected act, should this be referenced in the witness statement or do you place it in the submissions?
Every now and then, there will be a ET case where a party is suspected of deliberately destroying or concealing or tampering with key evidence. Or a witness has been intimidated in some way. From what I gather, perverting the course of justice applies to the civil and criminal courts so why isn’t it dealt with more often at the Employment Tribunal?
There’s a critical document which underlines my claim and is referred to in many places and heck I’ve seen parts of it, so I know it exists and (presumably, via common sense) the R’s solicitor knows exist, but yet their client won’t disclose it. The best the R’s solicitor can tell me is that “my client has advised me that they have disclosed all relevant documents”.
Are they allowed to keep repeating this mantra? They repeated it in response to my specific disclosure application to the Tribunal too (which they full well know will not see the light of day for months, if ever, before the FH).
I’ve been chasing for months and the R’s solicitor has now told me they’re not going to engage in further discussion over it and I have to wait for the Tribunal to decide on my application and they will disclose any documents as and when they are found.
I’m at the stage of writing my witness statement and I don’t feel comfortable doing this without this document.