ET hearing costs

[sam1888]

Hi

 

It is very difficult to advice on a claim that we know little about.

 

[1] What has the old letter you keep referring to got to do with your current claim? you can object to this document being part of your claim if it has no relevance.

 

[2] It is highly unlikey that you will be granted a review...you shoulds have requested a PHR instead of a review.

 

[3] All you can do is wait and see , the problem is that if you are not granted a review then you must appeal to the EAT within 42 days of your withdrawing your claim.

 

I strongly urge you to seek good legal advice before it is too late.

 

Good luck

 

Hi,

 

A2: There was a PHR scheduled by the judge but with costs risks.

A3: Can a review only be made by the same judge, that is what the ET admin people said. Is that worth asking a judge to possibly change his own decision. Appealing is an endless process, and I think I may just have to walk away and get on with my life and accept the legal system has got the better of me.

A1: Medical information, the judge has not clarified what, but there is only one thing it can be, but I wrote to him with all the current info and he just replied back the PHR is still on, and no reference to it. He used it at the CMD to say it was the main reason for the CMD and costs warning, but there is nothing inconsistent in that letter, he seems to be misunderstanding it and from the get go imply i am lying based on that and the current one referring to an episode triggering again after years. I think he misunderstood that I was saying it happened for the first time. No idea he hasn't explained, it's all guess work. But there is not a lot else it can be.

 

I have to be careful what I say as potentially the press would love this story as I was working for a national charity. And I really dont want to go to that extreme.

 

It's exhausting .....

Edited May 22, 2012 by sam1888

[madari]

Hi

 

A review is basically revisiting the judges own decision, If you say that there is an impending PHR then i dont see what the problem is.

 

As for the EAT it is a long drawn process but at least if you are allowed an appeal on a`point of law` then there is free representation under the elaas scheme.

 

I still urge you to seek legal advise.

[sam1888]

Hi

 

A review is basically revisiting the judges own decision, If you say that there is an impending PHR then i dont see what the problem is.

 

 

But can the review be done by another judge or only the same judge. The ET admin staff said a review can only be done by the same judge of their own decisions. Is that your understanding?

[sam1888]

So this is the reply so far, and I called about 4 times to check the review process and inform them I had been under pressure, and was given different answers so had to call back. And by "self-select" he means I had asked for another judge to make an independent review.

Dear Madam,

 

 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTOF CORRESPONDENCE

 

 

EmploymentTribunals Rules of Procedure 2004

 

 

I refer to your email dated 22nd May 2012,which has been placed before Employment Judge [edit] who directs as follows:

 

“The claimant’s email dated 22ndMay 2012 has been considered by Employment Judge [edit] as you are notentitled to self-select which employment judge is allocated your file. He has been informed that you havepersistently telephoned the tribunal since you were informed your case has beentreated as withdrawn.

 

EmploymentJudge [edit] has directed that the employment tribunal staff are not torespond to any further telephone communications from you.

 

If you are unhappy with the Tribunal’sdetermination of your case you have a right to appeal to the Employment AppealTribunal at:

 

Employment Appeal Tribunal

 

Second Floor

 

Fleetbank House

 

2-6 Salisbury Square

 

London

 

EC4Y 8JX

 

Telephone: 0207273 1041

 

Fax: 020 7273 1045

 

Email: [email protected]

 

 

 

Yours faithfully,

 

 

 

For the Secretary of Employment Tribunals

 

 

Edited May 23, 2012 by honeybee13
Removing name for your protection.

[madari]

????

Edited May 24, 2012 by madari

[sam1888]

Hi

 

This is what I have been telling you from the outset.

 

`Write a letter to the ET request a PHR and wait for a reply`.....you went and did the complete opposite and now it seems that you have jeopardised your own case.[too many cooks spoil the broth, comes to mind]

 

I will say no more on the matter.

 

Good luck

 

I am sorry but I think your tone is unnecessary and unhelpful. I'm not an expert at the ET system, nor a lawyer. It's best you don't reply if you are using such a tone in your response. Also you clearly dont understand my situation.

 

a) I DID have a PHR scheduled

b) the judge unusually allocated costs

c) linking it to an old case and medical evidence he has used incorrectly

d) under pressure due to the costs threat of the Respondents costs, I ended up withdrawing

e) I contacted the ET trying to reverse that, it was declined. What makes you think requesting a PHR will be allowed?

f) I wrote to the ET requesting a review. Why on earth do you think I could request another PHR when he has yet to review/consider the withdrawal decision that was declined anyway?

[professional1964]

Is your comment "huh" aimed at the ET's response? I believe that sam1888's old case should not have been linked with her new one if the papers should have been destroyed after 2 years. Surely that must be wrong?? How can they use an old case against her to threaten her with costs? It doesn't seem fair to me.

[sam1888]

Hi, so just heard back from the ET about the revised letter I sent in to Judge [edit] ....see below:

 

 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OFCORRESPONDENCE

 

 

Employment Tribunals Rulesof Procedure 2004

 

 

I refer to your lettersdated 23 May 2012, which has been placed on the file.

 

Further to the Tribunal’sletter dated 23 May 2012 Employment Judge [edit] has directed that it is notappropriate for the tribunal to respond to any further correspondence from youas your case has been closed. If you wish to pursue the matter you must contactthe Employment Appeal Tribunal.

 

- so basically he is not even going to respond to what the signifance of the old letter was, we are supposed to have guessed and that was the reason for costs and the PHR in the first place. How wonderfully fair - not!

 

So.... the question is whether to attempt the EAT and therefore set new case law if/when I win.

Edited May 25, 2012 by honeybee13
Editing out the judge' name AGAIN

[professional1964]

Hi, so just heard back from the ET about the revised letter I sent in to Judge [edit] ....see below:

 

 

 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OFCORRESPONDENCE

 

 

 

Employment Tribunals Rulesof Procedure 2004

 

 

 

I refer to your lettersdated 23 May 2012, which has been placed on the file.

 

Further to the Tribunal’sletter dated 23 May 2012 Employment Judge [edit] has directed that it is notappropriate for the tribunal to respond to any further correspondence from youas your case has been closed. If you wish to pursue the matter you must contactthe Employment Appeal Tribunal.

 

- so basically he is not even going to respond to what the signifance of the old letter was, we are supposed to have guessed and that was the reason for costs and the PHR in the first place. How wonderfully fair - not!

 

So.... the question is whether to attempt the EAT and therefore set new case law if/when I win.

 

OMG I bet you are not happy at all with that response

Edited May 25, 2012 by honeybee13
Judge's name

[sam1888]

OMG I bet you are not happy at all with that response

 

Well he is basically saying he is not even considering the content of what I wrote. I have no idea as to why the judge included the old letter, he only said it would be apparent, but it's simply not. And apparently the old letter was the reason for the PHR and the costs warning, yet he never says why, ..... how on earth is that fair!!!

 

And we are supposed to guess the relevance of the letter, in respect of a personal injury, that does not even tie up at all. Unbelievable.... no words at the moment.

[honeybee13]

Sam, I've removed the judge's name for the second and third times in case it causes you problems. I'm not a legal expert and don't know for sure if this could affect your case, but in any case the name isn't relevant to this thread.

 

Please try to be careful.

 

HB

[sam1888]

Hi,

 

Can someone point me in the direction of what point of law these aspects of my appeal my fall under:

 

i) Where an unrepresented litigant is pressured and seeks to withdraw it

ii) Where the Judge has put costs on a PHR and the fairness of that

iii) Where a Judge has linked two cases, and not even explained why....he said the relevance of an old letter re personal injury would be clear, but it's not. He won't explain the relevance

iv) There was a request of disclosure of documents which he refused me too

 

Thank you in advance.

[becky2585]

Honestly, I'd strongly suggest consulting a solicitor.

[sam1888]

Honestly, I'd strongly suggest consulting a solicitor.

 

Yes I will first thing Monday. Thanks. As EAT has tighter deadlines, is it best to submit in the cover sheet application form with a letter saying the rest is to follow?

[sam1888]

Does anyone know where there was a costs risk previously, and I want to appeal that decision to the EAT, do I run the risk of costs in full or just the costs of appeal or not?

 

I feel like I am prevented from appealing due to a risk of costs from before on me. Yet the Judge's reference to the costs is based on something I am 99.9% has been used incorrectly. :?

 

I want to appeal it but I just dont know if I run the risk of full costs by doing so? :?

[billybobyeeharrboy]

Very interested to find out an answer to this question, because I am submitting my appeal tomorrow to the EAT

 

Where are you caggers?

[sam1888]

I've submitted mine today and asked the registrar to clarify the position in respect of costs, for the sift stage, before I can even consider proceeding, and explained that I may be prevented from appealing due to that.

 

Does yours have a costs issue too?

 

At the EAT normally there is no risk of costs, the only difference is here possibly where the judge as made a point of putting in a costs warning to the PHR order. Otherwise there is no risk of costs I believe, I'm assuming your appeal is not being vexatious, etc.

[billybobyeeharrboy]

Hi Sam,

 

many thanks for your response, I dont believe that there is a costs issue as my representative has said that this is unlikely.

 

correct, my appeal is not being vexatious but more highlighting the fact that my witness statement was not read properly by the panel because a certain point has been completely omitted and not taking into account when making the decision, therefore I would like to get a second opinion as I belive that the decision goes 100% against me, if I am 100% wrong then why bring a claim in the first place.

 

To my understanding a EAT claim can be lodged however it is quite a high hurdle to get the appeal in to the EAT, I would be interested to know what your knowledge on this matter is?

 

All the best and gd luck

 

BB

[sam1888]

Hi, It has to be on a point of law, what is the point of law your rep is saying the Tribunal got wrong?

 

My case is where the Judge seems to be doing some strange things that are not normal practice.

[sam1888]

No update yet, it's still being considered by the registrar.

[billybobyeeharrboy]

Hi Sam,

 

when do you think you will get a response back from the EAT?

 

I am still in waiting for my response all, submitted now. In response to your post the 29th May, the point of law the Appeal is on that the Judge missed crucial information from the witness statement and based the decision without (it appears) having read the witness statement properly. Therefore my representative has appealed the decision on PERVERSITY.

 

I also submitted an review and the judge was very unreasonable simply sending it straight back: denied.

 

How likely do you think you appeal will be accepted??

 

 

Regards

 

BB

[sam1888]

No idea....thought I would hear this week just gone, but hopefully this coming week. Likelihood - probably poor. I am not hopeful at all. Why? as everything, and I mean everything seems to be going totally against me. It's the logical thing I guess! :?

 

In yours: I wouldnt assume anything missed seemingly means it's approved. A lot of things are opinion based it seems, and fact chosen to be disregarded as they please!

[billybobyeeharrboy]

Hi Sam,

 

Thanks for your message. I really hope it will all work out.

 

Happy fathers day!

[sam1888]

Still waiting to hear from the sift people I rang them up, they said there are a lot of appeals, it will probably take 2 weeks more.

[sam1888]

Hi, I made a request to the recruitment agency for a subject access request in line with data protection legislation, and sent the £10 fee, recorded delivery. Can anyone help?

 

I received this reply today from them:

 

DearSamantha

I amin receipt of your Data Protection request and your formal complaint dated 26thJune 2012.

1. DataProtection

 

You are not entitled to all the documentation relating to you as this requestis far too wide.

 

If you identify the categories of documents and the dates, recipient and senderand search words we can search for e-documents.

 

We do not hold paper records in a structured set of records and therefore yourrequest for any paper records does not fall within the ambit of "personaldata".

PersonalData means information which –

(a)is being processed by means of equipment operating automatically in response toinstructions given for that purpose,

(b)is recorded with the intention that it should be processed by means of suchequipment,

©is recorded as part of a relevant filing system or with the intention that itshould form part of a relevant filing system,

(d)does not fall within paragraph (a), (b) or © but forms part of an accessiblerecord as defined by section 68, or

(e)is recorded information held by a public authority and does not fall within anyof paragraphs (a) to (d).

‘Relevantfiling system’ (referred to in paragraph © of the definition) is defined inthe Act as:

anyset of information relating to individuals to the extent that, although theinformation is not processed by means of equipment operating automatically inresponse to instructions given for that purpose, the set is structured, eitherby reference to individuals or by reference to criteria relating toindividuals, in such a way that specific information relating to a particularindividual is readily accessible.

 

Our paper records are not in "a structured set" and are not "readilyaccessible".

Soif you can clarify by those parameters requested above the 40 day periodrequired under s.7(8) of the Data Protection Act 1998 will then start.