Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


1 Neutral
  1. As in the title. Hopefully this time someone will provide me with specific answer without flaffing about...
  2. The next hearing will anyway be heard by another judge so there's no need to ask for such a change. I am really sorry to write this but I can almost feel this judge's perception. He's being a bit cynical, a bit straightforward but I will only blame the system - which allows the public to assume any layman will be given special treatment. Nope. Represent yourself? Make sure you know what to say or do in court otherwise you loose.
  3. lindyhop, what are you claiming for the time being before ET? My point was to take on a rep (can actually even be a friend or a family member) for the whole of duration of the process. It all has got to do with the judges' perception thingy - can't really do much about it but the fact is that when they see someone claiming DD and enrolling a rep to defend their case, they feel more compassionate towards such claimants. When you submitted application for DD claim, what incident(s) exactly you referred to, let's clarify.
  4. Yep, let's concentrate on the case. I see you have a hell of a case - in terms of preparation for it - and so to defend it during CMD. I don't agree that CMDs are not for defending your claim. CMD, as the name suggests, specifies how the route of the claim will go so if you don't give a damn at CMD, why the judge should? For example, on application from the other side, CMD can strike out any respondents, without even going into PHR. Again, I would sit down, draft and apply for permission to re-submit the claim again, but this time referring to all the mischief they have thrown at your friend. It all has to be a concise picture of your friend's case and what they had done to him. It might help to bulletpoint their forms of harassment on a separate piece of paper and then transfer everything into logical legal framework. As for unfair dismissal case law, search for fabricated statements against a dismissed employee (I'm sure I read about at least one such a story in media, not through a typical case law summary, but I bet there are some existing out there) and where the employer behaves in such a way to get rid of employee covered under DDA because they don't want to pay him sick leave any longer. The judge(s) will need to see your determination to prove your case set out in the claim. And they will make a decision based upon your determination and confidence that after his work colleagues will give evidence, your claim will prove correct. You need to make a list of who you will bring as witnesses because these people already agreed to testify (but not including actual respondents as they are witnesses anyway; perhaps the manager of the blocks of flat can serve as a witness to confirm the claimant got on well with her - so that you could draw interference before tribunal that your friend would have no reason or interest to break their positive relations). You also need to make an evaluation how many days the hearing will last based upon above cross-examinations. So you can see there is a lot of work involved. I see this may be daunting or time consuming if you work yourself, but not impossible. It really appears to me that by admitting that "the procedure wasn't followed", their lawyers ARE trying to frame your friend even further - into something that never took place but they will want to argue that should the procedure was followed, the outcome would have been the same. Which is only to wear your friend down emotionally, so push push push with these claims of harassment through fabricated allegations!! When the manager of the block of flats complained, what happened next? How the complaint was resolved? Is this clinical depression connected with your friend's former place of work? I might have missed that info but would like to clarify it...
  5. No, she wasn't. It was pure rant on her side. I wrote (and you quoted that yourself), "quite in a patronising manner". You have missed that bit.
  6. I quoted your response only, therefore was replying to you specifically, haven't you noticed? How do I call such people like you... saboteurs! But, nevertheless, you are being excused - while being mad you don't realise your own flaws so I don't dare to expect you will understand others (I refer to the ET process, in overall, not myself).
  7. You reminded me of that receptionist in the county court where I recently went so as to only observe someone else's hearing. I expressed such a wish but instead of referring me to a case supervisor, she started her litany, quite in a patronising manner, as to what happens if one thinks about bringing a claim to CC. I did my best and listened to her politely while refraining from laughing (as I knew these things already) but wasn't she missing the point of my request? A simple request requires simple response - simple as. At some point I swear she was ready to say "No, you cannot observe ay hearing! Who you think you are!" but I noticed two being listed for that day just next to her on the nearby wall so continued and eventually succeeded in my mission ! She should have left her impressions to herself but she made a stupid cow of herself instead. In front of me.
  8. Lol! That's what bunnies like me call it a fighter's spirit. Look, the case is complicated, that's for sure. And not a typical one for EAT to hear it but that's how the cookies crumble - every case in court will be different, every law student will tell you. Maybe there wasn't a case like this before because there were no such circumstances happening at the same time together before? Therefore, it would constitute a precedent. If that's not enough, there is likely to be another (!) precedent in the case - in terms of another possible bias as to which judge or member should or shouldn't sit in the panel (Court of Appeal has already widely expressed their position in this regard). It worries me that some of you know only the general bits of the case but rush to full unreserved judgement. Do you judge people in this way all the time or is it a temporary disorder?
  9. Hiya, I think I would seek to amend the claim as to that myriad of lies - to put it blantly, that it is a bloody fabrication of allegations to further harass your friend. It has to be all white and black in court papers. If your friend says he didn't do any of these things, then why should anyone turn to areas of employer's reasonability in conducting the grievance process? The more you allow the other side lawyers to shriek (love your description!) about this Polkey, the more you allow them to convince judges that there was something your friend is simply not confessing to. Allegations have been fabricated and there is not a single line of your friend's signature on any minutes that would usually follow in such circumstances. End of.
  10. lindyhop, I am sorry to read about what have happened to you but I would seriously advise asking someone to represent you. Have you tried enquiring with pro bono solicitors? Judges are ready to be sympathetic to those developing depression as a result of work issues but they need to get to the point of confidence of such findings in the first place. If you take a representative now, you can ask the judge to revise his decisions based upon your earlier lack of actions or their delay. From what I read from all sorts of judgements, judges tend to look strangely at those who claim DD but still represent themselves in court. It just doesn't straightforwardly click to judges that there may be a genuine case.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  • Create New...