Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • love the extra £1000 charge for confidentialy there BF   Also OP even if they don't offer OOC it doesn't mean your claim isn't good. I had 3 against EVRi that were heard over the last 3 weeks. They sent me emails asking me to discontinue as I wouldn't win. Went infront of a judge and won all 3.    Just remember the law is on your side. The judges will be aware of this.   Where you can its important to try to point out at the hearing the specific part of the contract they breached. I found this was very helpful and the Judge made reference to it when they gave their judgements and it seemed this was pretty important as once you have identified a specific breach the matter turns straight to liability. From there its a case of pointing out the unlawfullness of their insurance and then that should be it.
    • I know dx and thanks again for yours and others help. I was 99.999% certain last payment was over six years ago if not longer.  👍
    • Paragraph 23 – "standard industry practice" – put this in bold type. They are stupid to rely on this and we might as well carry on emphasising how stupid they are. I wonder why they could even have begun to think some kind of compelling argument – "the other boys do it so I do it as well…" Same with paragraph 26   Paragraph 45 – The Defendants have so far been unable to produce any judgements at any level which disagree with the three judgements…  …court, but I would respectfully request…   Just the few amendments above – and I think it's fine. I think you should stick to the format that you are using. This has been used lots of times and has even been applauded by judges for being meticulous and clear. You aren't a professional. Nobody is expecting professional standards and although it's important that you understand exactly what you are doing – you don't really want to come over to the judge that you have done this kind of thing before. As a litigant in person you get a certain licence/leeway from judges and that is helpful to you – especially if you are facing a professional advocate. The way this is laid out is far clearer than the mess that you will get from EVRi. Quite frankly they undermine their own credibility by trying to say that they should win simply because it is "standard industry practice". It wouldn't at all surprise me if EVRi make you a last moment offer of the entire value of your claim partly to avoid judgement and also partly to avoid the embarrassment of having this kind of rubbish exposed in court. If they do happen to do that, then you should make sure that they pay everything. If they suddenly make you an out-of-court offer and this means that they are worried that they are going to lose and so you must make sure that you get every penny – interest, costs – everything you claimed. Finally, if they do make you an out-of-court offer they will try to sign you up to a confidentiality agreement. The answer to that is absolutely – No. It's not part of the claim and if they want to settle then they settle the claim as it stands and don't try add anything on. If they want confidentiality then that will cost an extra £1000. If they don't like it then they can go do the other thing. Once you have made the amendments suggested above – it should be the final version. court,. I don't think we are going to make any more changes. Your next job good to make sure that you are completely familiar with it all. That you understand the arguments. Have you made a court familiarisation visit?
    • just type no need to keep hitting quote... as has already been said, they use their own criteria. if a person is not stated as linked to you on your file then no cant hurt you. not all creditors use every CRA provider, there are only 3 main credit file providers mind, the rest are just 3rd party data sharers. if you already have revolving credit on your file there is no need to apply for anything just 'because' you need to show you can handle money. if you have bank account(s) and a mortgage which you are servicing (paying) then nothing more can improve your score, despite what these 'scam' sites claiml  its all a CON!!  
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 160 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Employment Appeal Tribunal Oral hearing help needed


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4116 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

I am trying to understand where part of billy's reasoning come from.

I am not saying he shouldn't feel aggrieved or upset because every normal, decent person woud be in his situation and what he went through.

The problem is we only get chunks of info here yet if billy is happy to provide us with more details surrounding his resignation, we will have a chance too see bigger picture.

 

I have seen that "bigger picture" many times on these boards and it is a very ugly big picture. I think that the ET has become irrelevant as it was unable to remain even handed. I think that a lot of Tribunal staff will be sacked in the forseeable as claims dwindle. Will they bother to fill in an ET1 do you think?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 123
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

I have seen that "bigger picture" many times on these boards and it is a very ugly big picture. I think that the ET has become irrelevant as it was unable to remain even handed. I think that a lot of Tribunal staff will be sacked in the forseeable as claims dwindle. Will they bother to fill in an ET1 do you think?

 

I hope so, or I'll be out of a job...

 

The legal world is predicting that there will be an increase to the complexity of litigation, because with the two year length of service requirement, people will be sneaking in claims through the back door on the back of discrimination/whistleblowing/health and safety breaches. That will mean protracted litigation and usually a PHR to dispose of any misconceived claims - so I don't think its likely that the ET staff will be out of a job.

 

Lawyers, on the other hand!...

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You should note that you can't seek to bring a claim in another forum (i.e. the county court) which has already been decided by a previous court or tribunal. So there's a good chance you couldn't bring a claim based on primarily the same facts.

 

 

???????

As long as any appeal process is active and one has got strong grounds for appeal (i.e. there was a serious flaw during the process of that particular court), one is encouraged to start claims in different courts.

Edited by ms_smith
Link to post
Share on other sites

In most cases where there are concurrent proceedings between the same parties in both the court and the employment tribunal, the employment tribunal proceedings will be stayed pending the outcome of the court proceedings. There is a recent case in which the EAT stated that concurrent proceedings should be avoided and it would usually be preferable to stay the tribunal proceedings pending the outcome of the court proceedings. However, a decision here has been made.

 

Therefore, estoppel is relevant here as it prevents claimants from bringing the same claim twice. The only point to consider is whether there are separate issues to be determined - and this is clouded by the fact that an appeal presumably would not be stopped pending a county court outcome, which would be the usual thing to do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't it depressing to know that people can get away with all those lies!! Money talks definitely. Browncow when are you going to ET or are you in the middle of a hearing? Is there anything I can do to help you?

 

Thanks for the offer. it is kind of you but I just have to face the reality.

 

I am set to go next week and can only hope for a moral victory.

 

It has cost me a lot of money and it really was just a total waste of time as nothing will change.

 

While I could continue working if I wanted to I really just want to get away from the low lives.

Link to post
Share on other sites

???????

As long as any appeal process is active and one has got strong grounds for appeal (i.e. there was a serious flaw during the process of that particular court), one is encouraged to start claims in different courts.

 

I think the big legal firms ( ususally acting for large companies or public bodies) have wrecked it for all practitioners because they deliberately targetted Claimants personally and would take any load of s**t to a full hearing just to get more money. The legal and moral arguments became secondary to monetary interests and tactics so the ET became cut off from the mainstream.

 

Employment Law only exists inside the Tribunal rooms. Employers know that they can do what they like and, unless they are really unlicky, get away with it..

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Browncow, let me remind you that Employment Tribunals are designed to seek one's justice. Justice will vary in every case and claimant's feelings but that's different kettle of fish.

 

You have to prove you need justice first, not the money. The amount of any amoney you will claim may be huge but if it doesn't meet with justice you would have to express in the first place, you come across as misconceived.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Y All the evidence is there and it will be efficiently presented but there are so few remedies in law and the awards are so stingy that it is really a lot of hard work stress and expense for nothing. I am sure that the Tribunal will bend over backwards to exonerate the employer as they did in Billybob's case.

 

Why should I personally have to pay thousands to illustrate that workers are harassed, policies are flouted or ignored , poor practice is justified and internal grievance processes are a tool of victimization when it is already well known and nobody cares?

 

As for the so called unions - they bear little resemblance to the original organizations that fought for social justice and equal rights -

 

 

Get an accident and injury policy and some legal insurance folks and take them to the county court if your health or wellbeing is damaged by your working environment.

 

 

Browncow I am with you on this one! Every single point you make is so relevant especially the grievance process being a tool for victimisation! I have had another day of enormous stress and anguish all because of my ex-employers. I am growing old and going grey with worry whilst they sit with their huge bank accounts knowing that they will most probably win. I went to watch an Employment Tribunal for a young man on his own. I sat for a couple of days and listened intently to the whole case (it was harassment and constructive dismissal). During the breaks I spoke to the young man and gave him support as he was on his own. The respondent's witnesses were obviously lying. Their stories did not correspond with each other's and whilst one was giving his statement and asking questions the other was sitting look agitated as this particular witness was giving a different version of events to the one he had given. Anyhow I sat their thinking the Tribunal would definitely find in the young man's favour. It was obvious to me that this young man had suffered and was alone with no representation and the respondent was lying! But not to the Employment Tribunal he lost the case! I was so shocked I actually felt like crying because of the injustice. However he simply walked over to them and shook their hand (which I would not have done). As we walked out of the room I told him how sorry I was and how brave he had been and honourable to shake their hands. He said I am the better person and I know I didn't lie. I can now put all of this behind me and get on with my life!

 

I really do think there should be a government support unit/advisory group for people going through the Employment Tribunal process so that at least they have a fair chance at winning their case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Browncow, let me remind you that Employment Tribunals are designed to seek one's justice. Justice will vary in every case and claimant's feelings but that's different kettle of fish.

 

You have to prove you need justice first, not the money. The amount of any amoney you will claim may be huge but if it doesn't meet with justice you would have to express in the first place, you come across as misconceived.

 

And what precisely is "one's justice"? I thought it was just justice and if equally applied should not vary all that much if decisions are being made fairly based on the same criteria.

 

There is no money in my claim. I would break even, if I won.

 

I resent your calling me "misconceived" . That is not an adjective to apply to a peson anyway and you have no right to disparage me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And what precisely is "one's justice"? I thought it was just justice and if equally applied should not vary all that much if decisions are being made fairly based on the same criteria.

 

There is no money in my claim. I would break even, if I won.

 

I resent your calling me "misconceived" . That is not an adjective to apply to a peson anyway and you have no right to disparage me.

 

 

It is all about principles/justice/compensation/honesty/integrity - that is the whole point of going to Employment Tribunal - it certainly isn't for the fun of it as there is no fun to be had when you are forced into a situation you don't want to be in through no fault of your own. From what I have heard from many people Employment Tribunals just aren't fair at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is all about principles/justice/compensation/honesty/integrity - that is the whole point of going to Employment Tribunal - it certainly isn't for the fun of it as there is no fun to be had when you are forced into a situation you don't want to be in through no fault of your own. From what I have heard from many people Employment Tribunals just aren't fair at all.

 

Browncow wrote:

 

While I could continue working if I wanted to I really just want to get away from the low lives.

Browncow, how else should this be interpreted?

There is nothing wrong with wanting a lot of money as a way of compensation but one should rather be motivated by justice, rather than "wanting to get away from the low lives".

Trust me, there are hundred ways to get away from sth you are not happy with.

 

I believe in justice (after I believe in the power of truth). I also believe that if you really want it and pursue it, you will explore all possible avenues of knowledge so as to get it.

I agree tribunals or other courts do not always deliver that justice but very often it happens that a lawyer you take on screws up your case so is it really the court's fault?

Also, one shouldn't wait for the judges to take care of everything. They deal with hundreds of cases every year so why should they be an unrepresented claimant's representative?

 

Browncow, I just want to warmly advise you to think over what you want from this process. No offence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Browncow wrote:

 

While I could continue working if I wanted to I really just want to get away from the low lives.

Browncow, how else should this be interpreted?

There is nothing wrong with wanting a lot of money as a way of compensation but one should rather be motivated by justice, rather than "wanting to get away from the low lives".

Trust me, there are hundred ways to get away from sth you are not happy with.

 

I believe in justice (after I believe in the power of truth). I also believe that if you really want it and pursue it, you will explore all possible avenues of knowledge so as to get it.

I agree tribunals or other courts do not always deliver that justice but very often it happens that a lawyer you take on screws up your case so is it really the court's fault?

Also, one shouldn't wait for the judges to take care of everything. They deal with hundreds of cases every year so why should they be an unrepresented claimant's representative?

 

Browncow, I just want to warmly advise you to think over what you want from this process. No offence.

 

Well you are giving offence.

 

Why are you preaching?

 

There is no issue of " a lot of money". It costs £10000 to bring a 5 day case and it may go on longer. I might break even, if I win.

 

 

I have had to deal with lies and manipulation and while I still have the job I no longer want to work for those people. I will leave after the case win or lose.

 

I really do not need to hear this from you as I go to court in a few days.

 

Please stop trying to justify your views at my expense and don't give me any more advice WARM or otherwise.

 

 

Also do not ask me to"trust you" . The idea that I am spending thousands to get away from an employer is your idea and it is an absurd interpretation of my post.

Edited by Browncow
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

just starting up this thread again.

 

In response to browncow I am sorry what you have to go through mate, I'd be interested to know what you are going through. I am about to submit an review with regards to lodging an appeal. Are you in the middle of the appeal? What is the general consensus? Seems really bad.

 

I want to request a review of my ET hearing, because I don't think the judges read the bundle as the evidence submitted showed without a shadow of a doubt that since the new line manager took over they had a plan to sack me despite the fact that they knew I had suffered a bereavement 6 months earlier and only taken 4 days off (compassionate leave)

 

The line manager picked up on a performance review that had been through at the beginning of the year, again 6 months prior. I need to be honest and state that I was turning up late and had had performance issues earlier in the year. The manager didn’t like me and gave me so much grief those six months after the bereavement I decided to come clean and reveal the true nature of the family death was a suicide. The company took no notice of this and wrote to the GP to seek further clarification. They didn’t believe about this disclosure about the suicide bereavement I had suffered. A week later, I broke down and was signed off.

 

I feel that the company deliberately tried to pull the wool of the judge’s eyes and justice has not been served. I am really upset and have lost faith in the justice system.

 

The judges arrived at the right decision with the evidence they were given, however I know for fact a lot of crucial info. has been omitted by the respondent to pervert the course of justice.

 

Please help as I am at my wits end. I have been on the case for a week now and haven't slept properly or eaten.

 

It is needless to say no amount of money will bring your loved ones back. Alas true justice which has been denied me, is my only consolation

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

just starting up this thread again.

 

In response to browncow I am sorry what you have to go through mate, I'd be interested to know what you are going through. I am about to submit an review with regards to lodging an appeal. Are you in the middle of the appeal? What is the general consensus? Seems really bad.

 

I want to request a review of my ET hearing, because I don't think the judges read the bundle as the evidence submitted showed without a shadow of a doubt that since the new line manager took over they had a plan to sack me despite the fact that they knew I had suffered a bereavement 6 months earlier and only taken 4 days off (compassionate leave)

 

The line manager picked up on a performance review that had been through at the beginning of the year, again 6 months prior. I need to be honest and state that I was turning up late and had had performance issues earlier in the year. The manager didn’t like me and gave me so much grief those six months after the bereavement I decided to come clean and reveal the true nature of the family death was a suicide. The company took no notice of this and wrote to the GP to seek further clarification. They didn’t believe about this disclosure about the suicide bereavement I had suffered. A week later, I broke down and was signed off.

 

I feel that the company deliberately tried to pull the wool of the judge’s eyes and justice has not been served. I am really upset and have lost faith in the justice system.

 

The judges arrived at the right decision with the evidence they were given, however I know for fact a lot of crucial info. has been omitted by the respondent to pervert the course of justice.

 

Please help as I am at my wits end. I have been on the case for a week now and haven't slept properly or eaten.

 

It is needless to say no amount of money will bring your loved ones back. Alas true justice which has been denied me, is my only consolation

 

I have not had the hearing yet. I spoke to the solicitor yesterday and in his view it is not hopeless. I have no complaints about him. He has been okay and very easy to contact throughout.

 

What has been hardest for me to grasp is that the victimisation elements, which were really important to me, despite stong evidence do not carry much weight it law. I do not really understand it but the fact that hey did it is not enough to win on victimisation you have to prove that they intended to do it which is hard.

 

I think that this is what might have happened to you. The Tribunal could see that you were treated badly but there was not enough there for them to meet the legal criteria.

 

Why was the evidence you needed not included? Did the Respondent fail to disclose it? Did you formally request it?

 

I really know next to nothing about the EAT. Have a look at these links

 

http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/bdotg/action/detail?itemId=1083962059&type=RESOURCES

 

http://etclaims.co.uk/tag/appeal/

 

http://www.out-law.com/page-9796

 

This quote is from the 3rd link

 

Mr Justice Underhill outlined the steps that Tribunals should go through when considering racial harassment cases.

 

The law now says that harassment occurs if it has the "purpose or effect" of violating a person's dignity or creating an intimidating atmosphere.

 

"That means that a respondent may be held liable on the basis that the effect of his conduct has been to produce the proscribed consequences even if that was not his purpose; and, conversely, that he may be liable if he acted for the purposes of producing the proscribed consequences but did not in fact do so," said the ruling.

 

Harassment occurs, then, if the perpetrator means it to, or if the offended person feels that it has occurred. Mr Justice Underhill pointed out, though, that any feeling of being harassed must be considered objectively to be reasonable, based on the offending behaviour.

 

"A respondent should not be held liable merely because his conduct has had the effect of producing a proscribed consequence: it should be reasonable that that consequence has occurred," he wrote.

 

"If, for example, the tribunal believes that the claimant was unreasonably prone to take offence, then, even if she did genuinely feel her dignity to have been violated, there will have been no harassment within the meaning of the section. Whether it was reasonable for a claimant to have felt her dignity to have been violated is quintessentially a matter for the factual assessment of the tribunal. It will be important for it to have regard to all the relevant circumstances, including the context of the conduct in question," he said.

 

Mr Justice Underhill said that a further requirement, that the conduct be shown to be on the grounds of race, will be familiar to Tribunals, and that they can use previous cases related to other laws to guide them.

 

"There is ample case-law on the nature of the inquiry required by the (interchangeable) statutory phrases 'on the grounds of' or 'by reason that'," he said.

 

The EAT said that in its assessment the original Tribunal had not misinterpreted the law, and that the award of damages stands.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

just starting up this thread again.

 

In response to browncow I am sorry what you have to go through mate, I'd be interested to know what you are going through. I am about to submit an review with regards to lodging an appeal. Are you in the middle of the appeal? What is the general consensus? Seems really bad.

 

I want to request a review of my ET hearing, because I don't think the judges read the bundle as the evidence submitted showed without a shadow of a doubt that since the new line manager took over they had a plan to sack me despite the fact that they knew I had suffered a bereavement 6 months earlier and only taken 4 days off (compassionate leave)

 

The line manager picked up on a performance review that had been through at the beginning of the year, again 6 months prior. I need to be honest and state that I was turning up late and had had performance issues earlier in the year. The manager didn’t like me and gave me so much grief those six months after the bereavement I decided to come clean and reveal the true nature of the family death was a suicide. The company took no notice of this and wrote to the GP to seek further clarification. They didn’t believe about this disclosure about the suicide bereavement I had suffered. A week later, I broke down and was signed off.

 

I feel that the company deliberately tried to pull the wool of the judge’s eyes and justice has not been served. I am really upset and have lost faith in the justice system.

 

The judges arrived at the right decision with the evidence they were given, however I know for fact a lot of crucial info. has been omitted by the respondent to pervert the course of justice.

 

Please help as I am at my wits end. I have been on the case for a week now and haven't slept properly or eaten.

 

It is needless to say no amount of money will bring your loved ones back. Alas true justice which has been denied me, is my only consolation

 

If I may pop in a few words of mine...

 

The judges might have been convinced that there was no harassment or bullying in your case because your former employer said they invited you for a coffee to talk about it when you said you are resigning and you agreed (if I am correct) to talk about it.

 

However, if you agreed to attend that meeting but shortly after decided to continue to resign and didn't work at all following that (I hope), then it still could be viewed, I reckon, as that you completely lost your trust and confidence in your employer and decided to escape humiliating, offensive and degrading environment - that if there was, in you, ever any slight remaining of hope that they will change and understand your situation, it has been blown away following that meeting - nothing constructive was proposed, such as their deepest apologies to start with, and you had no other choice but to continue to resign.

This might be your key argument, in your application for a review as well: is there any evidence in the bundle or their own witness statements that they have apologised for anything during that meeting? Have they even expressed any words of sadness over your personal loss or proposed any constructive solution to their attitude, etc?

 

 

If you can point again to the evidence that they did commit various acts of insensitive conduct that could be viewed as potentially harassing and viscious, then you could say you based your decision to continue to resign on that final meeting (with no words of any apologies whatsoever, from them). Of course the question is: what would made you happy not to continue to resign following the scope of harassment they subjected you to and whether it was offered to you during that "coffee" meeting?

Don't be afraid to give an honest answer, you are anonymous here anyway.

Also, can you specify what exactly made you tell them you want to resign after what they wanted to talk it over?

Forget what I told you before. If you want to win, you may have to push it that way.

Please respond asap.

 

I am not saying that this is the case in your case - just a general point of law: in certain circumstances (and depending on those circumstances), employees can even work their notice until the end of it following the final straw that made them arrive at a decision: "I have got enough! I resign!"

 

Sorry to read about your loss of a loved one.

 

Regards

Edited by ms_smith
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Browncow,

in relation to proving the victimization, The company has submitted, many internal emails, showing the senior members of staff are gossiping behind my back, viewing me with contempt, and not taking my requests for counseling seriously, on three occasions they had the chances to grant my counseling request despite the fact the request was from a GP. It took them four months to grant one day off a week, for counseling. My question is why did they drag it out for so long, even though they knew the facts of my bereavement??

 

Yes mate, my legal, representative made a request for records of this evidence, the respondents solicitor could not provide it. However the HR manager emailed me late at night asking for my mobile and then rang me the next day on my mobile. Conveniently rang FROM the personal MOBILE. Perhaps this was done in an unofficial manner so that the conversation could not be traced. Once this conversation took place, the HR manager disappears from existence within the bundle of evidence submitted by respondent.

I miss re-iterate, this was not brought up in the hearing because

a) I was so nervous

b) the junior barrister was absolutely nervous. Probably more nervous than I was

c) how is the judge and panel supposed to make a sound decision if they have been misguided by the respondents and had the wool pulled over their eyes?

Thanks for your 3rd link, this is really helpful! I particularly like this one, and I hear it loud and clear

The law now says that harassment occurs if it has the "purpose or effect" of violating a person's dignity or creating an intimidating atmosphere.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Browncow,

in relation to proving the victimization, The company has submitted, many internal emails, showing the senior members of staff are gossiping behind my back, viewing me with contempt, and not taking my requests for counseling seriously, on three occasions they had the chances to grant my counseling request despite the fact the request was from a GP. It took them four months to grant one day off a week, for counseling. My question is why did they drag it out for so long, even though they knew the facts of my bereavement??

 

Yes mate, my legal, representative made a request for records of this evidence, the respondents solicitor could not provide it. However the HR manager emailed me late at night asking for my mobile and then rang me the next day on my mobile. Conveniently rang FROM the personal MOBILE. Perhaps this was done in an unofficial manner so that the conversation could not be traced. Once this conversation took place, the HR manager disappears from existence within the bundle of evidence submitted by respondent.

I miss re-iterate, this was not brought up in the hearing because

a) I was so nervous

b) the junior barrister was absolutely nervous. Probably more nervous than I was

c) how is the judge and panel supposed to make a sound decision if they have been misguided by the respondents and had the wool pulled over their eyes?

Thanks for your 3rd link, this is really helpful! I particularly like this one, and I hear it loud and clear

The law now says that harassment occurs if it has the "purpose or effect" of violating a person's dignity or creating an intimidating atmosphere.

 

 

You really need advice on this review and appeal stuff as the time is short

 

Relationship between an application for review and appeal

An application for review does not change the time limit for making an appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT), ie you may appeal to the EAT while waiting for the result of the application - see the page in this guide on appealing against an employment tribunal judgment.

 

You must also lodge with the EAT a copy of the application for review and, if the application has been heard and determined, a copy of the tribunal's decision on the review

 

http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/bdotg/action/detail?itemId=1083961758&r.i=1083972304&r.l1=1073858787&r.l2=1074207487&r.l3=1083960053&r.s=m&r.t=RESOURCES&type=RESOURCES

 

Is inadequate representation grounds for appeal? Did that junior barrister belong to a firm or was he a sole practitioner?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Browncow thanks for this.

 

No, I don't think that "inadequate representation", is grounds probably not grounds for a review, however a misguided judgement, leading to:

a) new evidence has become available since the conclusion of the hearing

b) the interests of justice require such a review

are grounds for review.

 

The Barrister was part of Bedford row chambers, I have already lodged a complaint with the legal ombudsman.

 

In terms of making an appeal, in my case the Employment Tribunal has made a mistake in how it applied the law. This is grounds for a review. What sort of costs am I looking at for going to the EAT???

 

Kind Regards

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear browncow,

 

I see from your post on the unions 05/march/2012...you state that you have been in touch with the EHRC [equality people] Who would be the very top person there to get in touch with?

 

I believe my human rights have seriously been breached.

 

thanx

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Browncow thanks for this.

 

No, I don't think that "inadequate representation", is grounds probably not grounds for a review, however a misguided judgement, leading to:

a) new evidence has become available since the conclusion of the hearing

b) the interests of justice require such a review

are grounds for review.

 

The Barrister was part of Bedford row chambers, I have already lodged a complaint with the legal ombudsman.

 

In terms of making an appeal, in my case the Employment Tribunal has made a mistake in how it applied the law. This is grounds for a review. What sort of costs am I looking at for going to the EAT???

 

Kind Regards

Free representation before the Employment Appeal Tribunal

The factors governing the availability of free representation operate differently at the level of the EAT than at first instance, and claimants who cannot afford to pay for representation will have a better chance of finding someone to act for free if they understand a certain amount about how this works.

 

There are two significant factors. The first is that appeals are normally much shorter than employment tribunal hearings. This is because, except in very unusual cases, no witnesses will be heard, and because the questions on which the EAT will hear an appeal are narrowly defined. Appeals only rarely last more than a day, and a large number will be completed in half a day or less. This also means that preparation for an EAT case is normally much lighter than for a first instance case: witnesses do not have to be interviewed, statements do not have to be prepared, documents do not have to be requested and disclosed, the hearing bundle will be much shorter and so on. This means that offering free representation on an appeal is less daunting in terms of work for the lawyer who makes the offer. (This is especially so for someone who is acting for free in the sense that they themselves are doing the work for no pay – this is a distinction that may be lost on the client, who does not pay in either event, but it can be useful to be aware of it. A lawyer working full time for a legal charity that provides free representation is normally paid a salary. A lay adviser at a Citizens’ Advice Bureau, a Free Representation Unit volunteer or a barrister acting for no fee is giving his time for nothing, so the longer the case takes the more time he loses from paid work.)

 

The other factor is double-edged. This is that appearances before the EAT, which is the next step up the legal hierarchy, tends to be regarded by representatives both as more interesting and more intimidating than appearing in the employment tribunals. Hearings are often presided over by High Court judges, and proceedings are superficially more formal. Some advisers who conduct cases routinely and skilfully in the employment tribunals simply lack the confidence to appear at the EAT and may be unwilling to take cases to appeal because they feel (although unqualified advisers are allowed to appear there and often do) that the EAT is the preserve of barristers and solicitors. The other side to this, however, is that many advocates will be more willing to take on appeals for free because they provide valuable – and comparatively rare – experience.

 

Both of these factors mean that a claimant who has failed to secure free representation at first instance from a local legal charity or other body should not assume for that reason that he will be refused help with an appeal. It is worth asking again at this stage, especially if the appeal raises a question that could be of general importance to other claimants in the future.

 

It is worth mentioning two specific sources of free representation at the EAT, both of which tend to find it easier to help at this stage than at first instance. One is the Free Representation Unit (FRU), and the other is the Bar Pro Bono Unit. Both organisations are London-based, and part of the reason they are more likely to be able to help with appeals is the simple geographical fact that the EAT for the whole of England and Wales has its hearings in London.

 

Claimants who live or work(ed) in greater London will often be able to be referred direct from their local Citizens Advice Bureau (CAB) or law centre.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear browncow,

 

I see from your post on the unions 05/march/2012...you state that you have been in touch with the EHRC [equality people] Who would be the very top person there to get in touch with?

 

I believe my human rights have seriously been breached.

 

thanx

 

I do not know who is the head honcho at the EHRC as I just spoke to one of the telephone advisors.

 

I also spoke to the Disability Law Service. I made an appointment by phone and a lawyer called me back on a specific day at an agreed time. It is a free service and the link is here.

 

http://www.dls.org.uk/advice/index.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Browncow,

 

many thanks for your posts this is very valuable info.

 

Please can elaborate: You took an Employer to the EAT and it cost £9K, I think you mentioned. Is this because you lost and had to pay the other sides costs. Did you get free representation?

 

My only concern with going to EAT is that respondent (who has millions) will try and drag the whole thing out in order to financially crippe and potentially bankrupt the claimant. Is this the case?

 

Kind regards

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Browncow,

 

many thanks for your posts this is very valuable info.

 

Please can elaborate: You took an Employer to the EAT and it cost £9K, I think you mentioned. Is this because you lost and had to pay the other sides costs. Did you get free representation?

 

My only concern with going to EAT is that respondent (who has millions) will try and drag the whole thing out in order to financially crippe and potentially bankrupt the claimant. Is this the case?

 

Kind regards

 

I have not been to either the ET or the EAT Billybob. I go to the ET at the end of next week. The £9K is the cost of my ET in total, which I have to pay for. I have already paid half and will have to cough up the rest after the case.

 

I am not likely to win because victimisation (outside of the context of discrimination - disability, age, sex etc) is difficult to win. However, who knows?

 

There is no chance of costs being awarded against me at the ET my brief assures me of that.

 

I think that the Respondent was astonished that I forked out the cash to pay for this case because I am unlikely to get much more than that if I win.

 

Also, they know if you are paying for it yourself or if a union are paying because the solicitor you use makes that clear. They only thing they do not know is the terms of the deal made with your solicitor so they keep him occupied with letters and objections and requests for postponement in the hope that every hour is costing you big bucks. Cheque book justice to be sure.

Edited by Browncow
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...