u/RecordingPositive379

I was dismissed soon after a protected disclosure. I'm a litigant in person in the Employment Tribunal (whistleblowing, s.103A/s.47B).

At a PH in late Summer, disclosure issues were reserved to a CMH in early 2027. Over two years, several DSARs and specific disclosure requests have produced no Teams messages or emails between the dismissing manager and the senior manager I disclosed to.

The evening before the PH, the respondent disclosed a Microsoft Purview screenshot of a search by their data-protection manager, titled with my name and filtered to that senior manager as recipient. It returned about 10,000 Teams items. The DSAR responses that manager signed produced none.

Two weeks after the PH I asked the Tribunal to extend the January hearing from 2 hours to a full day, as the earlier day listed for disclosure was used on other matters. A judge then criticised the length of my correspondence. In late September the respondent's solicitors wrote to the Tribunal saying they would reply to me on disclosure. I answered, asking specifically for the messages between those two managers. Since then I've had no ruling on the listing and nothing from the respondent.

1. I plan to send nothing more to the Tribunal before the next PH, to avoid further length or vexatious criticism. Is that sound, or does staying silent risk something?
2. Is there any reason not to send a short private email to the respondent's solicitors chasing their promised response, for the paper trail?
3. At the CMH, how should I frame an unless order for these messages, given the respondent's own screenshot shows a search returned about 10,000 items?

Happy to clarify anything.

Respondent did not comply with bundle index or disclosure deadlined and they conceded these two points in the recent PH.

But i sent correspondance chasing the respondent for these deadlines and also made some applications which the tribunal has criticised me for but the tribunal has not mentioned anything for the respondent who missed the trbiunal orders.

Should i write to the tribunal to get the CMO updated to capture the respondents conduct or not responding to emails and not complying with tribunal orders?

I have a substantial amount of evidence but the tribunal has imposed a page limit of no more than 450 pages.

Given this limit for a whistleblowing case what are the key documents that need to go into the bundle? and what can be excluded?

Thank you

The respondent is refusing disclosure on several items.

• Several lines state "this data does not exist" answers with no search trail shown (no systems, no search terms) — for categories central to the case
• Deletion logs admitted to exist, but withheld as "not relevant"
• Refusal to confirm whether a litigation hold was ever put in place
• Refusal to give a signed statement confirming disclosure is complete
• No privilege log at all — multiple items are withheld as "legally privileged" with zero log identifying what's being withheld or why, and when directly asked for a privilege log they said they don't hold one and it would be "disproportionate" to create one

Has anyone dealt with this pattern before? Is blanket templated refusal of metadata (and refusal to produce a privilege log) something tribunals usually push back on, or do respondents get away with it? And is it worth fighting now at CMO stage, or better saved for adverse inference at trial?

What is the art of cross examination in whistleblowing? How do you get the witness to answer that favours your case?

What do you do with witnesses thag should have been called by the respondent but were not? When do you apply for adverse inference?

Thanks

If i instruct counsel just before the Final hearing so i have self represented through the PH's is it likely to encourage settlement given Respondent's risk increases with professional representation?

Thanks

Should the Skeleton arguement submitted by the Respondent be shared with the Claimant? The Claimant has already shared their skeleton but the respondent has only shared their skeleton with the tribunal.

Is there anything that can be done about this? I thought Rule 90 meant all communications from both sides need to be copied into both parties.

Please can tell me how often is this awarded to Claimants and what can be claimed?

If the respondent does not abide by court orders or is late, or does not respond to disclosure request or keeps mischaracterises a CMO where the Claimant has to spend time to set the record straight are these claimable?

Thank you

I think the consensus is spend money on final hearing advocacy.

Is there any other areas worth spending money on?

Thank you

Hi All

I have the 2nd edition of this book - is that adequate or should i buy the latest edition which i think is the fourth editionb?

Thank you so much

I've noticed a consistent pattern: the Respondent has produced documents through my Subject Access Requests (DSAR) under UK GDPR, but when it comes to Tribunal disclosure under Rule 31, the same documents either haven't appeared.

My specific questions:

1. Is it legally permissible for a Respondent to produce a document through DSAR while simultaneously arguing it is irrelevant or outside the scope of Tribunal disclosure?
2. Can a Respondent claim a document "doesn't exist" for Tribunal purposes when it has already produced it through a DSAR?
3. The documents I received through DSAR came as redacted PDFs — metadata stripped, some names blacked out. The Tribunal disclosure obligation presumably requires native format with metadata where that goes to authenticity. Am I right that these are two separate obligations?
4. Has anyone experience of an Employment Tribunal making an adverse inference direction where documents were produced through DSAR but withheld or redacted in Tribunal disclosure?

If the ET3 has pleadings that are not in the ET1 can the employers ET3 be used to get a pleading on the list of issues?

The Respondent has lied in the ET3, I have primary evidence to prove otherwise what they pleaded e.g. a recording.

The employer has not included this lie in the LOI can i get it added based on what the employer has said in the ET3 which i can then use the evidence to disaprove ?

Hey all, hoping some people with ET experience (or barristers/solicitors who don't mind sharing general knowledge) can help me think this through.

I'm self-representing (litigant in person) in a whistleblowing claim. Got a Preliminary Hearing coming up in a few weeks, no barrister, just me.

Two things I'm trying to get sorted at this PH:

1. Amending the List of Issues. The current version doesn't fully capture some of the issues I think are central to the case (some causation/motive points, some procedural stuff). I know judges can be cautious about late amendments, especially close to a hearing. For anyone who's done this - what actually works? Is it better to go in with a fully drafted amended list and ask the judge to approve it there and then, or flag the general areas and ask for directions to file something formally afterwards? Any tips on how to frame the "why now" / "why wasn't this in the original list" question, since I know that's usually the first pushback you get?
2. Getting disclosure orders. I've made disclosure requests that haven't been fully complied with (redactions, native files not provided, some categories just ignored). What's actually effective at a PH for getting a judge to make a proper order rather than just "the parties should try to agree between themselves"? Is it more persuasive to go category-by-category with a tight table (what's sought / why it's relevant / what order I want), or is a shorter more general argument better? Also - anyone had luck getting orders for native files with metadata (not just PDFs/redacted copies), and if so what worked?

I've got everything pretty organised (indexed bundles, cross-referenced to the issues), so it's not a case of me turning up unprepared - more that I want to make sure I'm using the hearing time efficiently and not getting steamrolled procedurally.

Would really appreciate any practical "this is what worked for me" type answers rather than just "get a lawyer" (I know, believe me, I know - not an option right now).

Thanks in advance.

I'm a litigant in person in an Employment Tribunal claim. There's a Preliminary Hearing coming up where I'm asking the judge to amend the List of Issues (LOI), and I want a reality check on what my options are if the judge declines.

Background

At a Preliminary Hearing about a year ago, the Case Management Order (CMO) records that the List of Issues "was discussed and agreed". But the document metadata tells a different story:

• The hearing itself ran for 2 hours in the morning.
• The Respondent's solicitor's own document properties show the "final" List of Issues was created on that same day — over two hours after the hearing ended.
• It was then emailed to the Tribunal at 17:00— 5 hours after the hearing concluded — without ever being put to me for agreement.
• The CMO recording "discussed and agreed" was issued three days later.
• The Respondent's own email four days before the hearing had confirmed my version of the List of Issues was "not agreed" at that point.

So the document being relied on as "the agreed List of Issues" was drafted and filed unilaterally, after the hearing had already finished, and was never actually discussed with me or the Tribunal in the hearing room.

Why it matters

The current LOI also omits several issues I say are properly pleaded — including a set of detriment acts I later raised in protective filings once I discovered supporting evidence (metadata proving backdated/fabricated documents, etc., discovered via DSAR). My concern is that even though the underlying claim (ET1 / Amended Grounds) technically still covers this material, in practice a List of Issues is what actually structures the evidence and findings at a Final Hearing — if something's not on it, it doesn't get argued and doesn't get a finding.

My question

Assuming the metadata argument is solid (I'm not asking anyone to weigh the merits of my case, just the process point), what happens if the judge at the upcoming PH:

1. Agrees the timeline undermines "discussed and agreed" as a description of that specific document, but
2. Still declines to formally amend the List of Issues — e.g. because they want to respect the previous judge's CMO, or because they think the pleadings already cover it and a List of Issues update isn't necessary?

Specifically:

• Is this realistically appealable to the EAT, or is a case management decision like this almost impossible to challenge unless the reasoning itself is legally wrong?
• Is reconsideration (Rule 70/71) of whatever new order comes out of the PH a real option, or mostly theoretical given the high bar?
• If the judge just doesn't rule on it either way (i.e. doesn't expressly reject the point, just doesn't amend the LOI), is there value in asking for my objection to be recorded on the face of the order for later use?
• Has anyone actually had a tribunal treat pleaded-but-unlisted issues as still "live" at Final Hearing in practice, or does that basically never happen once a List of Issues is settled?

Any experience from people who've dealt with a disputed List of Issues — especially as a litigant in person — would be genuinely useful. Trying to plan for the realistic outcome rather than assume the best case.

I'm a litigant in person in an Employment Tribunal claim (whistleblowing detriment + automatic unfair dismissal). I have a Preliminary Hearing coming up where I'll be applying to amend the List of Issues to add several new issues/sub-issues.

My approach has been to rely on two cases together:

• Selkent Bus Co Ltd v Moore [1996] ICR 836 — the standard test (arguability, prejudice to either side, overall balance of justice).
• Abercrombie v Aga Rangemaster [2013] EWCA Civ 1148 — to argue that the focus shouldn't be on whether an amendment is formally a "new cause of action," but on the practical extent of new factual/legal enquiry it requires, and specifically whether the other side already had the underlying facts or a fair opportunity to investigate them.

Most of the amendments I'm seeking are based on documents the Respondent itself produced (through disclosure), or on its own pleaded case, rather than on anything new to them. My argument is that under Abercrombie, there's no real prejudice because they already had the material — even though the amendments introduce new legal characterisations.

A few questions for anyone with ET or civil litigation experience:

1. Is combining Selkent and Abercrombie like this actually sound, or is Abercrombie more of an EAT/appellate gloss that doesn't do much extra work at first-instance Tribunal level?
2. Are there other cases commonly cited alongside Selkent for "the respondent already had the facts, so no real prejudice" arguments that I should also have ready?
3. In practice, do Employment Judges find this kind of "no new enquiry" argument persuasive, or does lateness/volume of amendments tend to dominate regardless of whose documents they came from?
4. Any common pitfalls with relying on Abercrombie specifically that I should be aware of before a judge tests it?

Thank you

For a one day PH for case management how long should a Skeleton with a few applications be? Can the skeleton include screenshots of evidence to backup the arguement incase the respondent does not include all the evidence in the PH Bundle? Thank you

Long story short — I was dismissed from a job and I'm now in Employment Tribunal proceedings. During the process I received a bunch of documents from my former employer through a Subject Access Request — things like performance notes, meeting scripts, and an objectives assessment — but they were all produced as merged PDFs rather than in their original file formats.

The problem is that some of these documents look like they might have been written after the fact to justify the dismissal rather than at the time they claim to be from. The performance documents do not have any dates, I think they have been fabricated and only metadata can answer this — what I really need is the metadata from the original Word and Excel files. Things like when they were actually created, who created them, whether they were modified after the date shown, that kind of thing.

I've since received other documents from the same employer in native format through a second SAR and the difference is night and day — you can see exactly who edited what and when. It's made me even more curious about what the metadata on the original documents would show.

My questions are:

Has anyone managed to get metadata from employment documents through a SAR or tribunal disclosure process? Did the employer just hand it over or did you have to fight for it?

Is there anything specific I should be asking for — like particular file properties or system logs — that would show when a document was actually created versus when it was last modified?

Has anyone had experience of a tribunal drawing an adverse inference from an employer refusing to produce documents in native format?

Any advice from people who've been through something similar would be really appreciated. Litigant in person so figuring a lot of this out as I go.

I had a 2 hour PH last year. We discussed pleadings for large parts of the PH.

I submitted a long list of issues and the Respondent also submitted a very brief list of issues.

The judge at the very end made some small changes to Respondent list of issues

After the PH in the same day Respondent solicitors sent the list of issues to the judge copying me in.

I was not engaged in loi nor did i agree.

But the respondent loi got adopted in the CMO.

It then resulted in a handful of pages in disclosure from the respondent.

Can someone tell me how to get the list of issues changed?

I have another ph coming up and ive submitted a Rule 29 application to ask for the list of issues to be changed and included my version of what i think the list of issues should look like.

Can anyone recommend a direct access barrister for Whistleblowing employment case please?