Fairly urgent - tribunal advice needed

[madari]

There is not going to be any costs order made against you, believe me.

 

These are all scare tactics that all lawyers use in an attempt for you to withdraw your claim.

 

Furthermore ,they cannot hold any documents which they propose to use after the hearing...the ET will not allow this to happen.

[kingofrod]

Thanks, Marie.

 

That all seems a bit, ummmm, rotten. I mean, I believe there's a chance the Tribunal will show some compassion and decency and decide that they acted too extremely.... As I'm representing myself, other than the advice of the respondent's solicitor that I have NO chance (which they're OBVIOUSLY going to say), how am I to know differently?

 

I want to carry this through because I feel I've been poorly treated and that they've artificially built a case against me (four months from bullying "incident" to complaint being lodged?? And three weeks from complaint being made and me finding out ANYTHING about it, just so happens to be at the same time as I'm getting bother for taking time off?)

[kingofrod]

Too long

 

Much better!

Arrrgh! LOL!!! Shall I try and meet somewhere in the middle? Reduce it still?

[madari]

Yes!!!.....[they are alredy aware of the facts stated in you letter,you dont want to appear to be patronising]

 

Dont worry too much the madari is here to help!!!

[mariefab]

If you're counting on the Tribunal feeling sorry for you, you're doomed!

That not their role. They read/listen to the evidence presented then make 'findings of fact' which is basically what they believe actually happened. When one side says x and the other y, they'll decide which they find to be more credible and go with that.

They apply the relevant legislation and case law to the facts found and arrive at a judgement.

 

So, in your case, they'll look at the evidence from both sides and decide whether or not your employer acted reasonably in dismissing you for the reasons they gave.

 

For the most part it'll boil down to what the employer had before them at the disciplinary and the subsequent appeal.

[kingofrod]

Thanks again, guys.

 

Marie, I don't need anyone to feel sorry for me (but it would be nice!) - but I need to them to see what I see, and I see a strong case in favour of my view that I was dismissed too readily. And that, again, is where my confusion stems from.

 

I think I have a case. I'm an unrepresented claimant. How would I know differently?

 

My concern is that a judge decides I don't have a case and then the respondent goes for costs. Because the judge says I had no chance of winning, will he award costs against me, even though I had a strong belief that my case was strong? There just seems to be a bit of a lack of clarity/certainty.

 

I want to win and I deserve to win, but I'm as concerned about costs being awarded against me as I am about winning.

Edited March 2, 2012 by kingofrod

[becky2585]

If the judge orders you to pay a deposit into the tribunal for having little prospects of success, then you need to worry. Costs aren't awarded just because a claimant loses - that isn't the purpose of the system.

 

Quite honestly, you do occasionally see instances where the judge will "feel sorry for" a claimant. I've seen a tribunal find in the claimants favour, in what were actually ridiculous circumstances, simply because the respondent acted like a moron in the witness box. Suddenly the evidence didn't matter - the judge used the few points in the claimants favour (and I do mean very few!) to make a judgment if unfair dismissal, which was actually wrong in the circumstances. The point is, it does happen, and if the ET take a great dislike to someone, they can usually point to enough evidence to find in the opposing party's favour. That's what makes litigation so unpredictable.

[kingofrod]

Thanks Becky! That's all interesting. So despite the warning from the respondent, I'd really have another opportunity to withdraw from the proceedings before a costs award is made against me? So if I'm told by the judge to pay a deposit, at this point I could say "I wish to drop the case" and nothing would be due? I don't think it will come to that, for I do feel I have a case (but I recognise that it could go either way).

 

I appreciate what you're saying about the sympathy vote. I hope I don't need to hope for or rely on that to win - I feel my case has enough merit to succeed without said sympathy.

 

I'd also hope that the ET, as you suggest, might take a disike to the respondent's solicitor on account of the heavy handed way in which they're dealing with me, and the intimidatory tactics they appear to be using. I was close to tears earlier when I read their latest letter about costs, thinking that it was unfair that I was unable to proceed for fear of them taking me for over £10k, but then I remembered what the good people of CAG had said about costs awards being unlikely.

 

But I feel bullied and intimidated by them and if I didn't have this place as a 'support system' or was less confident about the fact that THEY ARE WRONG, I could well have just walked.

 

I wonder, though, if I may have made it difficult of a tribunal to rule in my favour on account of the fact that I've not asked for money.

 

I've asked for my job back - which the respondent has said they wouldn't give me even if the judge ordered it - and I've asked for my employee store discount. Can the judge order the latter to be awarded?

[becky2585]

Nope. Unfortunately not. You could probably add 26 weeks worth of discount value as a benefit under your schedule of loss. But even that's questionable. Worth a try, though.

[kingofrod]

Oh well. I'll fight for my job back, hope they settle before court, but resign myself to possibly getting a compensation awary when they refuse to take me back.

 

As for the PHR, does someone need to request this, or is it standard?

 

Thanks

[madari]

hi

 

PHR`s only happen in complex cases yours does not seem too complex and the need for any PHR`s are usually identified or requested at a very early stage of the proceedings ....ie at a CMD hearing.

 

On a final note, either party can request either a CMD or PHR and either party can and will oppose any such request.

[kingofrod]

hi

 

PHR`s only happen in complex cases yours does not seem too complex and the need for any PHR`s are usually identified or requested at a very early stage of the proceedings ....ie at a CMD hearing.

 

On a final note, either party can request either a CMD or PHR and either party can and will oppose any such request.

That all sounds very positive. Thanks so much.

 

I cannot believe that the solicitor for the respondent is allowed to speak to and treat me how they are - the threats and the intimidation.

 

I am committed to seeing this through because I feel I have a case.

 

"All it takes for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing" (sorry, Winston, if I'm off a little)

 

Have any of you with more experience of this kind of thing than me seen a respondent back-track and settle out of court after previously rejecting the offers put forward by the claimant?

 

I hope to keep putting pressure on the respondent (politely) to realise that the offer I put to them was fair, reasonable and BENEFICIAL to them as much as it was to me.

[madari]

Hi

 

You should NEVER have offered to settle because what you have done is show them your weakness as they now know that they can treat you how they want to before `buying you off`if they need to, at a later stage.

 

The only way you can put pressure on them is by fighting your corner ,for example writing to the ET and requesting a PHR just so that you can clarify the worry that you have regarding the costs order.

 

It is better for the ET to ask you to put down a deposit which is only £500 as opposed to the 10k that they have threatend you with.

 

If as they state , your case has no merit is correct, then let the ET tell you at a PHR and not them.

 

 

I can also guarantee you that they will not backtrack and settle now unless you have a watertight case.

[kingofrod]

Hi Madari! Isn't settling the whole purpose of ACAS getting involved though? I thought offering a settlement was the done thing, considering so many cases seem to settle before reaching the Tribunal?

 

I will apply for a PHR I think. I assume I can do this regardless of their Without Prejudice SatC letter, as long as I don't mention that letter?

 

£500.00 I can afford to lose. £10k not so much!

[madari]

Hi,

From my experience ACAS are a waste of time, they themselves are overloaded with work and will do anything to get you off their workload.

 

Forget the`without prejudice` nonsense, remember you are in a battle and the time for niceties is over.

 

You must apply for either a CMD or a PHR ,at the end of the day what have you got to lose? but gain experience.

 

State in your letter why? you are seeking a CMD or PHR [the threat of costs]

 

Good luck

[becky2585]

I don't see any reason why a PHR would be granted in his case. The most common reasons for a PHR would be for example if there was a jurisdictional issue, if the respondent was disputing the claimants disability, or if an application had been made for strike out on the basis of little prospects of success. By applying for one yourself, you might as well just tell them you don't think you are going to win.

 

Offering to settle is not a sign of weakness. My two strongest cases at the moment are in the process of settling, because it saves on time and expense in continuing, and because they're in a strong position, the respondent knows that they have no choice but to back down, it's best for all parties to explore settlement at an early stage. From experience, companies who have been adamant they won't settle have caved in when the reality of them having to be cross examined in court kicks in. They panic and they settle - often the night before!!

[madari]

Hi Becky,

 

I highly respect your advice but my personnal experience is completely at odds with yours.

 

so I will leave it at that.

[kingofrod]

I don't see any reason why a PHR would be granted in his case. The most common reasons for a PHR would be for example if there was a jurisdictional issue, if the respondent was disputing the claimants disability, or if an application had been made for strike out on the basis of little prospects of success. By applying for one yourself, you might as well just tell them you don't think you are going to win.

 

Offering to settle is not a sign of weakness. My two strongest cases at the moment are in the process of settling, because it saves on time and expense in continuing, and because they're in a strong position, the respondent knows that they have no choice but to back down, it's best for all parties to explore settlement at an early stage. From experience, companies who have been adamant they won't settle have caved in when the reality of them having to be cross examined in court kicks in. They panic and they settle - often the night before!!

Thanks Becky,

 

That's interesting stuff with the PHR. I'm just trying to avoid being landed with costs - I think I need to get it round my thick skull that the chances of costs being awarded against me are slim......

 

The respondent has said now that because I put on my "Facebook" that I was considering leaving them to work full time for the second employer I had, they saw my absense as me having left [them]. I'm sure I could just argue that, untill I tell them I'm leaving by means of a letter of resignation, it's inappropriate for them to draw conclusions from things posted on silly Facebook?

 

Also because on Facebook my employer changed, during my time off, from Company A to Company B (I was trying to add Company B but it got taken on by Facebook as current employer), they claim this indicated that I'd left. Same counter as above, perhaps?

 

I'm getting more and more cross when I see what they're suggesting as holding against me. If I wanted to take the p*ss out of them, why would I have made such an effort to NOT TAKE A SINGLE DAY OFF WORK (beyond annual leave) and keep a clear attendance record for ten years?!

[kingofrod]

Sent letter off rejecting offer from the respondent. They have to prepare the documents within the next week so I look forward to getting that.

 

Is it normal not to have heard anything yet with regards to the Tribunal's decisions on a) dismissing the case completely because I missed the first deadline and b) extending the Tribunal hearing to two days?

 

It's been a few weeks since these applications were made and I've heard nothing back from the Tribunal.

 

Cheers gang.

[kingofrod]

Think I missed the postman delivering the documents the other day. Looking forward to seeing that. The list they sent is huge, though. Lots of things they're submitting. I guess the Tribunal doesn't see this before the day, right? So do we kinda just sit there and watch as they read? How does the actual hearing actually work?

 

My local Tribunal office never seems to have anything on. Always get pulled at last minute.

[madari]

No they dont ....you need serious help!!! lol!!!!

[kingofrod]

Huh?

[madari]

Hi

 

Best thing for you to do is to go and sit in on a hearing.

 

It will give you an insight into what goes on at a hearing and will also give you valuable first hand experiance.

 

Good luck

[kingofrod]

Cheers. I'm trying to get in to a hearing near me, but they never seem to go ahead. Plug always pulled last minute. Will keep trying.

[madari]

Make a day of it and try going out of town but make sure you carry a note pad and pen handy to make notes.

 

If you are lucky it is also a good place to meet like minded people in the claimants waiting room who can and will give you handy tips so get there early .