Suing tribunals service - which court the claim goes to?

[ms_smith]

Seriously.

 

I am not talking about a clerk forgetting to put a letter before the judge on one or two occasions.

I am talking about staff prejudicing the attitide towards the whole of the process to the point that the case is damaged and later lost.

Claim involves psychiatric injury so that would be personal injury claim (?).

All backed by law that clearly supports above case.

 

Where do we start?

Edited September 13, 2012 by ms_smith

[becky2585]

Which case law? Prejudice isn't a reason to sue - what's your proposed claim?

[BankFodder]

I think that you are better of starting by making a complaint to the courts service. They do have a central office in London somewhere

[ms_smith]

Sorry, dear caggers, if I sounded a bit aggressive.

It just shocks me to the bone that people go to court to sue their employers but cannot do it because a t**t decides to hijack their perception.

 

Becky, I refer to Contempt of Court and Protection from Harassment Acts.

Claim of personal injury and compensation over damages.

[ms_smith]

I think that you are better of starting by making a complaint to the courts service. They do have a central office in London somewhere

 

Uh-hm, but where such a complaint can get anyone to?

Damages already been done.

[becky2585]

If you're seriously alleging bias, the courts are under a duty to investigate. An EAT appeal can be submitted within 42 days.

 

I can't see a psychiatric damages case succeeding here though.

[Emmzzi]

"Hijack their perception"? I don't even know what that means. Can you tell us what happened without being so cryptic?

 

Ok. I am guessing you have had a) a dismissal b) an appeal and c) an ET. Or similar.

 

After being heard 3 times I would get a lawyer's opinion as to whether you actually have a case before investing any more time in it.

[ms_smith]

If you're seriously alleging bias, the courts are under a duty to investigate. An EAT appeal can be submitted within 42 days.

 

I can't see a psychiatric damages case succeeding here though.

 

A complaint to ET already was issued in the meantime, they investigated, apologised but harassment continued.

Appeal in progress.

GP gave opinion - mild depression in connection to proceedings.

Is High Court the one to submit such claims?

 

Becky, you say the prejudice cannot be a reason. But what if that prejudice (fuelled by C.o.C. Act) determines one's determination to pursue (or not) their case?

Employment Tribunals may be less formal in the way hearings are conducted but the process around it is the same like in a formal court. It's not a playground where orders to build a sandcastle are given (well, at least not directly, lol).

Edited September 13, 2012 by ms_smith

[ms_smith]

"Hijack their perception"? I don't even know what that means. Can you tell us what happened without being so cryptic?

 

Ok. I am guessing you have had a) a dismissal b) an appeal and c) an ET. Or similar.

 

After being heard 3 times I would get a lawyer's opinion as to whether you actually have a case before investing any more time in it.

 

I am talking about a completely flawed ET process on the part of staff and direct implications for the rest of the process, employment issues have nothing to do with it here.

Thanks, I skip lawyers since I saw one dismissing obvious case, and another dismissing himself from the case (when it's me who provided missing legal argument).

[Emmzzi]

You still haven't said what they actually *did* so it's going to be difficult to advise on the basis of a bit of a vague rant?

 

2 lawyesr are not all lawyers, but if 2 disageed with *you* (not sure if that is what you are saying) then maybe they had a point?

 

The process can be flawed but if the outcome would have been the same had the process been perfect, you have limited redress.

[ms_smith]

You still haven't said what they actually *did* so it's going to be difficult to advise on the basis of a bit of a vague rant?

 

2 lawyesr are not all lawyers, but if 2 disageed with *you* (not sure if that is what you are saying) then maybe they had a point?

 

The process can be flawed but if the outcome would have been the same had the process been perfect, you have limited redress.

 

Yes, I realize you would prefer to know exactly what went wrong to form an opinion.

But for the time being, sorry, I have to research for information which courts deal with claims arising from ETservice' mishandling the case.

It's not the case of lawyers disagreeing with me. It's just one having been too lazy or scared (?) to take on a straightfoward case with a merit, the other not getting to the bottom of the problem enough and so - loosing.

I see your point about the same outcome option, but... No. Determination to pursue one's case is everything in court. If one is being approached by the staff as to the judges' specific and unusual intention towards the process (and there is law that may allow this to happen), if it wouldn't happen in the first place, the course of proceedings would have been different because there would be no shift in determination to prove one's case. If that makes sense...

Thanks for your input all.

Edited September 13, 2012 by ms_smith

[ms_smith]

I bet system offered to the public works better anywhere else than in Yorkshire region.

Edited September 14, 2012 by ms_smith

[Emmzzi]

potentially libelous statements aren't going to help you/ very mature... venting is best done at home in private!

[altobelli]

I think ETs are generally fair and they do have a reputation for trying to put both parties on an equal footing, e.g. trying to make both parties feel at ease, particularly where a claimant may be feeling overwhelmed by the process.

 

It could be that on occasions there are judgements which are incorrect, or cases where the proceedings aren't handled as well as they could be. Your best options are either to make a complaint to the court or go to the EAT.

 

But in terms of damages I've never heard of these being awarded against the tribunal service - I think you'd have to prove a deliberate bias, or a substantial degree of negligence.

[ms_smith]

altobelli, I call it a dereliction of duty with serious, long term implications for the process but you don't learn about it until the process is completely over.

 

The staff should know what they are doing, they work for that system on a daily basis and were informed about their expected code of practice when they started.

Edited September 14, 2012 by ms_smith

[becky2585]

Can you be more specific about what actually happened?

 

Clearly the Tribunal is technically biased in every case it hears - it does have to find in favour of one party, after all. It's also quite common for an ET to take a dislike to a witness if they behave aggressively, and find a reason to find in the other party's favour - it's not unlawful, its just how they go through the decision making process.

 

One party is going to be unhappy with the outcome in every case!

[altobelli]

altobelli, I call it a dereliction of duty with serious, long term implications for the process but you don't learn about it until the process is completely over.

 

The staff should know what they are doing, they work for that system on a daily basis and were informed about their expected code of practice when they started.

Sure, but what did they actually do, or not do? How have their actions disadvantaged you? Were their actions fundamentally unreasonable? Is the problem with the judge or the court staff? These are the kinds of things you would need to establish. If a decision was made because they found someone unlikeable and allowed this to cloud their judgement, then this may be unfair, but its very difficult to prove, you'd have to demonstrate either that evidence was ignored or deliberately misinterpreted.

[Emmzzi]

Here is the absolute best advice I have found on the subject.

 

http://etclaims.co.uk/2009/03/can-i-sue-the-judge/

 

Followed by a good dose of "no one can help you if you insist on being all secret squirrel about it."

 

Delighted to help if you want to take an adult attitude and give sufficient information so people can advise on facts, not rants.

 

If what you actually want to do is just have a rant, that is also ok, but it saves everyone's time if you label your post "I would like a rant and am looking for sympathy."

[SweetLorraine]

Hi ms_smith,

 

it isn't at all clear what you are talking about I'm afraid.

 

Perhaps you should concentrate on success in the EAT appeal process for now - focus on the outcome you are seeking.

 

You may be very angry after a decision went against you. I believe most of them do go against the claimant if they go to a full hearing (stats anyone? I think I heard someone on Radio 4 say it was 9 out of 10 claims fail in the hearing - I could be hopelessly wrong with that ratio though).

 

What I am saying is that you are not the only one, there are loads of claimants that may well feel as strongly as you do - and the ET courts have an appeal process set up for that very thing.

 

Take a liitle time to reflect on things.

 

If you feel you still have a strong case - don't get mad, get even.

 

If you know in your heart that you haven't a strong case - well, you gave it your best shot, dust yourself down, walk away, enjoy your life.

 

High court applications etc;? No, please don't do that to yourself.

[altobelli]

I think you're right on the stats based on ballpark figures, although it varies significantly depending on the type of claim.

 

Also, employers are more likely to settle out of court if the claim is strong and some employers will always try and reach settlement, so cases which go to ET are often, though not always, the weaker claims.

 

For the OP, I would recommend EAT if they feel strongly about their case. Possibly complain to the court about the initial decision, but its hard to say based on the available information.

[ms_smith]

Sure, but what did they actually do, or not do? How have their actions disadvantaged you? Were their actions fundamentally unreasonable? Is the problem with the judge or the court staff? These are the kinds of things you would need to establish. If a decision was made because they found someone unlikeable and allowed this to cloud their judgement, then this may be unfair, but its very difficult to prove, you'd have to demonstrate either that evidence was ignored or deliberately misinterpreted.

 

 

Right, in short it started off with the court staff but the implications of her (illegal - we know only today) actions were spread along further process, namely had direct effect on particular stages of the process.

[becky2585]

Right, in short it started off with the court staff but the implications of her (illegal - we know only today) actions were spread along further process, namely had direct effect on particular stages of the process.

 

What specifically were these illegal actions?

[ms_smith]

Hi ms_smith,

 

it isn't at all clear what you are talking about I'm afraid.

 

Perhaps you should concentrate on success in the EAT appeal process for now - focus on the outcome you are seeking.

 

You may be very angry after a decision went against you. I believe most of them do go against the claimant if they go to a full hearing (stats anyone? I think I heard someone on Radio 4 say it was 9 out of 10 claims fail in the hearing - I could be hopelessly wrong with that ratio though).

 

What I am saying is that you are not the only one, there are loads of claimants that may well feel as strongly as you do - and the ET courts have an appeal process set up for that very thing.

 

Take a liitle time to reflect on things.

 

If you feel you still have a strong case - don't get mad, get even.

 

If you know in your heart that you haven't a strong case - well, you gave it your best shot, dust yourself down, walk away, enjoy your life.

 

High court applications etc;? No, please don't do that to yourself.

 

Guys, guys, guys!

I appreciate all your out-of place advice (because it will help others, not us, yet thanks again) but for god's sake, you are wasting your own time trying to teach an old dog new tricks.

 

Just out of curiosity, how many claims out of those 9 in 10 were pursued by unrepresented claimants?

If you were yourself engaged in the process as unrepresented claimants, do you recall all those informal chats with court clerks? Well, if I were these clerks, I would be very careful what to say to any party before any hearing. They may have good intentions, but they may as well accidentally throw a party into a legal track of prejudice towards the process. After all, it is them who are the middle point between you and the judges.

[assisted blonde]

Sorry still not making a lot of sense, it may be that the actions wernt illegal just not what you expected really think a little more information is needed if you want any real advice or commenets.

[ms_smith]

What specifically were these illegal actions?

 

If they do or say things they weren't authorised to do or say.