ET lost

[Susiegraham]

as in making allowances for you during the hearing like more breaks? or something else?

I suffer acute anxiety and stress as a result of major surgery and treatment.

Edited January 7, 2014 by Susiegraham

[Emmzzi]

Ok. So you wish to use your condition to explain why you took certain actions, which then presumably resulted in the employer taking action against you?

 

1) does your medical report explicitly state this kind of behaviour can be as a result of your condition - remember your disability is cancer, not stress, so it needs to link to the disability

2) would the employer have been aware of your condition at the time?

[billybobynumeroduo]

I had a cancer diagnosis last year and have struggled to come to terms with it. Coupled with this I'm going through an ET claim, which is very stressful to say the least!

I know that cancer sufferers are always recognised as having a disability.

Will the ET take my cancer diagnosis and the anxiety and stress associated with cancer/ ET into account for the ongoing proceedings?

I have a doctor's note detailing my health issues.

 

hi

 

very sorry to hear of your C diagnosis hope you are staying positive.

 

I doubt the ET will take it into special consideration unless you specifically request they do so. In what way would you like the tribunal to make special arrangements for you?

 

also if I may ask does the diagnosis form part of your ET claim?

 

Best wishes

 

BB

[billybobynumeroduo]

I wouldnt worry about your illness at the hearing you should be covered in that respect. Focus on that which makes up your claim.

Hope this makes sense?

[Susiegraham]

Just wonder what your opinion is regarding my ET case.

Just found out that my ex-employer has a large number of witnesses against little old me! They have witnesses providing the most ridiculous evidence, which really isn't relevant!

Is this a common tactic? Annoying thing is that the time required for the hearing will all be adding to costs! Doesn't seem fair!

Edited February 1, 2014 by Susiegraham

[Emmzzi]

relating to this thread?

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?409512-ET-amp-witnesses&p=4398801#post4398801

 

if your claim is vexatious costs may indeed be awarded against you; however as we don't know what your case is about it is impossible to advise on the strength of your claim.

[Susiegraham]

My claim isn't vexatious! Huge case with lots of procedural failures with evidence to back it up!

[ericsbrother]

You will find it normal that your employer lines up 3 people to give (normally written) evidence that contradicts what you say. The weighting given to this by the tribunal varies from none to considerable if not proven to be false. If you have evidence that shows the witness statements are false then that will be the end of them. Your employer will not call these people in to give evidence personally as they are normally obtained under circumstances that dont stand up to cross examination, hence the written statement.

[smokejumper]

I don't think there is any end to the various tactics they use. Some off them quite pedantic .

 

It surprised me really to think that all these intelligent barristers, with all their studying and knowledge are content to win by dirty tricks against an LIP with their head barely above the water.

 

I see in your other post it is scheduled for 2 weeks, that's a long trial. When is it, have they had many CMD and PHR meetings, they seem to like them and giving you paper work just as you enter the room,fully unprepared.

 

Keep on with it, I don't get people trying to talk you out of it, just because they had a bad experience.

 

My motto is " better to have tried and failed, than to not have tried at all " something like that anyway.

 

As it is I don't think it's a particularly good system and even more so now you have to pay, it does seem to favour the employer and it evens stated that it is not there to be a punishment, surely when laws are broken then the person should be punished.

 

Please keep us up to date, don't leave it so long.

 

Good luck.

[Emmzzi]

My claim isn't vexatious! Huge case with lots of procedural failures with evidence to back it up!

 

No need for exclamation marks, I was just stating the facts as I see them i.e. I have no idea if your case is strong. People's knowledge should be borne in mind when deciding if their advice has merit.

 

Have you been issued with a costs warning?

 

Do you have legal representation yourself?

[Susiegraham]

Thanks for providing positive response smokejumper.

I'm not under any illusion and know that things often go against the claimant. It's important for me to have closure and will go all the way. At least I'll have the pleasure of dragging them through it. Had 4 CMDs, one over telephone.ET is at end of February.

[smokejumper]

The cmd and phr really get on my t*ts, its a way of nibbling away at the case.

 

Everytime I go to one, I really feel like saying, why don't we just get on with the trial and you can sort it out then.

 

I also think its a tactic to see what you got and then change witness statements, also gauge how good you are and whether it might be better to pay up quick.

 

Difficult decision to make in how you approach them, I like to be a bit like Columbo and don't like to play my best hand before the real game proceeds.

 

I guess you know you can disagree about things in the CMD and write in to the tribunal and possibly get them removed.

[steampowered]

Four CMDs is quite a lot. Has the number of witnesses already been approved by the Tribunal?

 

The Tribunal will need to OK all of this because they need to know how long to book the trial for. A cohort of witnesses can easily turn a 1-day trial into a 4-day trial. Calling lots of unnecessary witnesses would be a foolish thing for a sensible employer to do against a litigant in person, since it will increase the employer's legal costs.

 

With all types of evidence including witnesses, it is a matter of quality over quantity. A single credible witness giving evidence which is directly relevant to facts in dispute which are relevant to the claim is infinitely more useful than a series of less credible witnesses giving evidence which is not relevant. The key to being a successful litigant in person is being very clear about what the law is, and about what you need to prove in order to win your claim. You musn't get distracted about stuff which is not directly relevant, must keep your emotions in check and must not get involved in a mud-slinging match.

[Susiegraham]

Well I went through my very lengthy ET to have found out this last week that I lost my case!! Pretty soul destroying, when all through we'd been assured a strong case.

Sadly the respondent and it's witnesses lied all the way through and the panel believed the untruths, which is shameful!

Having been through it and looking back now I would have no faith in the system. Total farce!!

Also, I can't believe a solicitor and barrister would build their case so massively on untruths! These are supposed to be professionals, although I know there are good and bad in every profession!!

Shameful! Anyone experience similar?

Still reeling from the shock of it!!!

Edited July 4, 2014 by Susiegraham

[honeybee13]

Hello Susie.

 

I'm very sorry to hear that and feel your disappointment. What a shame.

 

Hugs, HB

[becky2585]

Well I went through my very lengthy ET to have found out this last week that I lost my case!! Pretty soul destroying, when all through we'd been assured a strong case.

Sadly the respondent and it's witnesses lied all the way through and the panel believed the untruths, which is shameful!

Having been through it and looking back now I would have no faith in the system. Total farce!!

Also, I can't believe a solicitor and barrister would build their case so massively on untruths! These are supposed to be professionals, although I know there are good and bad in every profession!!

Shameful! Anyone experience similar?

Still reeling from the shock of it!!!

 

I suspect they were acting on their clients instructions rather than fabricating a tale themselves. Getting struck off wouldn't be worth it for one case...

[Atlas01]

crap result for you but i'm 100% unsurprised

 

lawyers and barristers take no prisoners and i've seen people torn to pieces on the slightest inaccuracy in my time.

 

No matter how good anyone thinks their case is, the law cares not.

[Susiegraham]

Very hard having to live with the fact that lies have been believed, especially with risk of costs order. Shameful really. Since read that incorrect judgements are reached in 20% cases. That's an awful lot of claimants having to live with the consequences. Very hollow victory for this company, especially when the liars are dependent on the long term support of a lot of employees. Could be tricky for them. Only takes one disgruntled employee! Very angry!

[Susiegraham]

I wonder if anyone has lost an ET and had concerns that they were seriously stitched up?

 

 

I lost my ET several months ago, which I've slowly come to terms with, hard as it was. Life goes on.

 

I was recently forwarded an email from unknown source with attachment

containing newspaper article about a barrister

that had represented the government in an Enquiry about wrong doing in the Conservative party.

 

 

Apparently the for-named barrister regularly represents the government in legal cases.

 

 

It turns out this barrister was representing the respondent in my case, which I lost.

 

 

Coincidence, I think not!!

 

 

My case was against a public body!

 

 

Need I say more!!

 

 

I have no faith in the ET!

 

 

Warning to others!!

[Emmzzi]

I am sorry this has brought it all back up for you Susie.

 

How are you doing otherwise?