Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


donarebun last won the day on February 15 2016

donarebun had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

51 Excellent

About donarebun

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. It could be a distraction. I would take it up though but I don't know how much you can take on at the same time. So ONLY take this up if you can cope (most people can't) Also, you could get your wife to write them a short email asking them how they got her email (her personal data). Why did they share that information with her? Was the intent to harrass her?
  2. In all most all dealings in court make sure you don't tell lies. It is very important. If they bring it up try and treat it as a no issue and down play it. What ever you do don't tell lies, I can't emphasize that enough.
  3. Hi steampowered, Please do you have any case law to support this statement. It would be great if the case law you point out has to do with discrimination of some sort I really need to know the other side's arguments
  4. Due to the rulings in Anyanwu v South Bank and Ezsias v North Glamorgan NHS Trust, most ET don't even hold a hearing for Strike Outs in discriminatory claims. It was a shock when this ET accepted to hold a hearing. Is it still possible to get the reasons the ET gave for refusing to hold a hearing? Maybe there was a case law that the ET used
  5. Thanks becky2585, My claim is for detriments suffered as a result of Protected Disclosure. I didn't (haven't) put in a claim for unfair dismissal. I made a protected disclosure. I began to suffer detriments; I knew about some of them but couldn't bring a claim because it was too weak (Chagger v Abbey National 2009). Some of them I didn't know about eg Claim that I was found sleeping on a day I was 50 miles away Claim that I had an altercation with a contractor I was supervising and many other false allegations. I only knew about these af
  6. I'm really curious because this is the second time you are saying this; ie Assumption being made at the Preliminary Hearing. This is clearly contrary to the ruling made in Arthur v London Eastern Railways Ltd ({2007} ICR 193) para 34 “I do not think that this is a strike out situation in which assumptions have to be made as to the truth of the facts in order to decide whether there is a cause of action”. So I really wonder why you keep saying it
  7. I don't think you are dense, you have given intelligent answers in the past and asked pertinent questions. I have a Preliminary Hearing to hear a Strike Out Application in January 2017. There are a lot of disputed facts so the Strike Out Application shouldn't have been fixed in the first place. I have requested documents at various times to prove my points but the Judge refused to order them. Without those documents it would be their word against mine and we all know that the Judge would be forced to listen to them. I will give you two examples , they claim I
  8. Hi steampowered, There is a Strike Out Application Hearing! If they succeed there wouldn't be any Full Hearing! The relevant case law (Qdos Consulting Ltd & Ors v Swanson) demands that Strike Out application must involve the examination of documents. Also two case laws (Anyanwu v South Bank and Ezsias v North Glamorgan NHS Trust) rules that it is rare that Strike Out Application should take place in discriminatory cases. Yet the Judge in my claim has agreed for a Strike Out Application to be held. If he/she has made an error now then what stops he/she from ma
  9. Hi Guys, Just to inform you I have found a relevant case law for this situation, it is Nagarajan v London Regional Transport [2000] 1 AC 502, 510-512, There the Judge ruled that the act does not in itself need to be discriminatory but the motive behind the act. So here failure to provide that particular email (in particular the false statement regarding its existence) is clearly an issue that needs to be looked at. Why did she lie? What was her motive? Thanks a lot guys. At this stage I would like to say Law is a beautiful thing with its twist and turns
  10. Error of Law: Failure to take into account all relevant consideration. A Preliminary Hearing to hear issue of Strike Out under Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure has been fixed for the 6th of January 2017. The Employment Judge has refused to order the disclosure of documents. This is an error of Law as the Employment Judge failed to take into account the ruling made in Qdos Consulting Ltd & Ors v Swanson UKEAT/0495/11/RN para 49 that strike out application should, rarely, if ever, involve oral evidence. This position is also emphasized in Arthur v Lo
  11. Hi everyone, If I make an Application (eg Application to Amend Claim Form) is it not my responsibility to put forward my case? Also if the other side has put in an application (eg Application to Strike Out) is it not their responsibility to put forward their case?
  12. I know that the law says "equity doesn't aid a volunteer". Since you provided the suit freely then you can't really ask for it to be replaced. Whatever the legal grounds though, DON'T. Someone is bound to gossip about it and you will see that it was not worth the few extra quid. Let go
  13. I believe "failing to follow the binding decision of a superior tribunal" is an error of law. Although I have not yet heard it used in the Employment Tribunal
  • Create New...