Hi i need help.

I applied to take my employer (major big employer) to employment tribunal.

Their 28 days to respond was up today.

I rang the tribunal centre before they shut at 5pm and they said to their knowledge they had not recieved anything from the respondent.

They said it was possible if theyd only sent it this afternoon they might not have picked it up so check next week.

If they have not responded they can apply to extend the deadline?

In what circumstances can they extend it?

Ive read that they dont even have to say why they did not respond?

I dont know if they are just trying to drag it out but it doesnt make sense that they wouldnt fight it.

Its a massive case,

im representing myself

and im going to prove they are guilty

but if they werent able to have a say it would make it easier

Tribunals routinely allow extensions to the deadline.

And employers frequently don't respond in time.

Don't even begin to think this will help you.

The chances are stacked on "it won't make any difference at all".

they can ask for an extension after 28 days have passed? Dont they have to explain why they didnt respond and cant i object to the extension?

Objecting may put you in a bad light before the Judge.

Wait a while, I believe they will still not respond to the extension.

Dont understand it because they have their own large legal team so why wouldnt they respond or ask for an extension within the time limit. Seems very odd. Maybe they know something I don't, some sort of conspiracy

Conspiracies are hard work - the other thing that I can't post due to it being on the banned words list is far more common!

Stop using your energy on pointless activities.

If, and it's highly unlikely,

you don't have to go to tribunal

- or get a settlement

- then that will be lovely;

but your energy is better used preparing your case than it is wasted on trying to figure out what, if anything, they are doing.

I have seen much better mistakes than conspiracies.

An all time favourite

- quite true

- was a tribunal claim that sat in the post room for six weeks because the idiot in the sorting section didn't know what it was or who it should go to.

So they put it on the side until someone ,(who didn't know a claim had been submitted) came looking for it after a phone call!

IF they fail to respond at all the matter will still carry on.

They will just look stupid when they come to explain themselves and that may earn you some sympathy

and possibly a bit extra for your additional costs

but wont change the substance of any argument.

If they dont submit anything at all then they will have nothing to talk about on the day

Hi,

the employment centre told me the respondent hadn't responded when they had!

now the respondents solicitor has emailed me (a rather 'trying to intimidate me' email).

And said that they also have a barrister.

Are they allowed a solicitor and a barrister?

She is saying there might not be a full hearing,

but the tribunal letter said the preliminary was to decide on the issues for the full hearing.

And ACAS said the same. confused!

They are like we have this big QC.

um that's nice for you.

threads merged

please keep to one thread

else it makes past advice worthless.

dx

They can have 20 solicitors and 100 barristers.

It's their bill!

Who and how many they get to represent them is their business, not yours.

It sounds like they are challenging the grounds of your claim.

If they are successful then no, it won't go to a full hearing.

Yes it is nice for them.

It's also remarkably common.

They have a legal team who will pick over everything in detail.

If you have a case, it might be nice for you too, as they would normally recommend a settlement.

But if you don't, you can expect them to make it very hard going, if it does go to a tribunal.

Hi,

the employment centre told me the respondent hadn't responded when they had!

 

now the respondents solicitor has emailed me (a rather 'trying to intimidate me' email).

And said that they also have a barrister.

 

Are they allowed a solicitor and a barrister?

 

She is saying there might not be a full hearing,

 

but the tribunal letter said the preliminary was to decide on the issues for the full hearing.

 

And ACAS said the same. confused!

 

They are like we have this big QC.

 

um that's nice for you.

A barrister has a right of appearance which means to appear before the Court to argue in a case.

In Employment Tribunal there is no need to have a barrister but some companies get one anyway.

Most barristers are not allowed to meet members of the public (including companies) directly

A solicitor is the first person you (or a company) comes in contact with

Don't bother yourselves about all that.

What you should focus on is the Strike Out application they might put before the Tribunal.

Strike Out Application is an often used tactics by Respondents.

The Tribunal considers it a draconian step and are reluctant to use them

What you need to do is to research on Strike Out Applications in the employment Tribunal and see how you can plead your case.

The judge wouldn't be lenient if you fail to do your homework.

Hi guys, I'm writing my witness statement and I'm just slightly unsure on the format of a couple of bits.

how do i refer to people in it. Can I use their names or do I have to just put initials?

Do I have to refer to the respondent as 'respondent' or can i use the employers name??

thanks!

Hi. I've merged your old and new threads to keep the information together.

People should be long later with advice for you.

HB

either as long as you are consistent. With people's names you cna use full name then just initials if you refer to them that way at the beginning. The other way is to not use names but the name of the post they hold if these are unique so line manager, HR person, company director etc. As for employers name it is normal to use the term respondent but again be consistent if you decide to use employers name rather than mix the 2.

Hi guys, I'm writing my witness statement and I'm just slightly unsure on the format of a couple of bits.

 

how do i refer to people in it. Can I use their names or do I have to just put initials?

 

Do I have to refer to the respondent as 'respondent' or can i use the employers name??

 

thanks!

With witness statements, the key is to write them in easily understandable language, and in a format which makes them easy to follow.

The Tribunal needs to understand the point being made. The statement must be clear and must use proper paragraphs. You can easily find examples online - such as http://www.lrdpublications.org.uk/downloads/WitnessStatement.pdf. Try to follow that sort of format.

The usual approach to witness statements is to mention someone's full name on the first occasion you refer to them, but to use an abbreviation on future occasions. For example, you might say 'Pete Smith (PS) said ...' the first time you mention him. But you might say 'PS said ...' in later paragraphs.

Sorry HB,

great thanks guys!. i have used the employers name, because its quicker and because its such a large company its abit strange saying 'respondent' all the time as there are many people.

Thanks that makes sense, i just wanted to make sure it wasn't wrong and there wasn't some rule about putting peoples names in it. To be honest they are mostly big people ie directors anyway.

oh that link doesn't work?

Hi guys, I desperately need some help again.

The respondent is putting completely irrelevant documents into the bundle. I have asked them to remove them but they have refused just saying it is relevant.

I understand that you can make your own bundles. However I am wondering if the witness statements include irrelevant information, is there anything you can do about that? and also on the day of the ET, can you request that part of the defence be struck out for being irrelevant? thanks so much!

the judge will decide if i is relevant on the day, generally not before

you can challenge the witness who has made the statement as they should be there. If it is a WS and no witness then ask for the statement to be removed as you havent been given the opportunity to cross examine. the tribunal wont want a delay whist the person is dragged away form their desk so they may very well decide to apply little weight to the statement even if they allow it to remain in the bundle

I would leave it alone. Nothing annoys a tribunal more than someone waffling on about irrelevant stuff. If the content is truly irrelevant, let them use their time talking about irrelevant things. I'm not sure why you would want to strike it out - that just gives them more of an opportunity to focus on things that relevant.