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.
thanks in advance