ET3 -- Respondant merely denies claim with no details

[Gnothe_Agathon]

Hi, I'm hoping for some advice (thanks in advance).

 

I resigned claiming Constructive dismissal over breaches of contract.

 

In my ET1 I provided the 10 breaches of contract, background, a timeline of events and specific headings covering the 10 items (15 pages) plus making 28 documents available.

The ET3 (or rather the Respondents Grounds of Resistance) has their version of a timeline followed by boiler plate denials without any defense. I won't paste the exact response but it runs through a whole set of denials without any evidence sort of as follows:

 

We deny he was constructively dismissed.

We deny we acted as he said.

We deny any breaches of contract.

If we breached the contract, we deny we broke the contract.

We deny he resigned because of any breach of contract.

Anyway he waived any breach of contract.

If he was constructively dismissed, we claim it was because of 'his capability, conduct or some other substantial reason. '

If he was dismissed the dismissal was fair

If the Tribunal finds that the Claimant’s dismissal was unfair, please reduce the award by 25%

In the timeline they have ignored a large proportion of the things covered. Effectively there seems to be no defense other than denial. My understanding is that they cannot insert new arguments without 'egg on their face' and I could then claim costs.

I had thought that they had to present a defense case (i.e. we deny x because of y) no matter how slim. What boggles my mind is the bolded quote above.

The ET3 was written by one of the 50 largest law practices in the world.

Any thoughts?

thanks in advance

 

 

 

 

[ericsbrother]

let it run, it is just a holding defence and they will be ordered to provide a full defence on the pain of having this one struck out.

 

I suspect their lawyers have rushed this together because their client has failed to act in a timely manner and are currently kicking them in their soft parts to get them to act properly and take it seriously

[Gnothe_Agathon]

Thanks, the client as a corporate firm has multiple experience with ACAS though I don't know which bit is handling it. If it is the divisional HR people, it would explain a lot.  I am a firmware engineer relying on logic

 

The judge seems to have accepted it without comment saying they will set a date fopr a 3 day hearing in due course.

 

I have objected to their request to change their name as I don't know the implications - the grounds are lack of evidence or reason for the request as well as differences between facts they stated to the tribunal and elsewhere.

 

I have to provide more details on my claim for outstanding pay which (fair enough) I did not really specify in great detail.

 

I had thought of going through the ET3, asking for it to be struck out and going for summary judgement given that 100% of my evidence that is not personal statement, is documentation.

 

The ET3 in places has shades of Vicky Pollard - it actually brings in stuff I left out of my complaint because I could not prove it. One of their counter complaints is that I told to test some software and I did so by entering incorrect information

 

Edited May 9, 2020 by Gnothe_Agathon

[ericsbrother]

then they have supplied more detail than you suggest.

Dont forget, it is for you to prove your claim and although that means just tipping the balance of probability you still have to fight a lot of previous determinations where logic doesnt seem to apply.