Witness satatement and ET3 - ** SETTLED **

[Lolas Cat]

Hello fellow caggers,

 

A rather simple question that I can't find any answer on and therefore asking here.

Where do I address incorrect statements (aka lies) the respondent made on their ET3 and Further Particulars?

 

And whom do I question/cross-examine regarding these statements? It is not really specified who said this and that, it's all very anonymous "Respondent".

 

Do I address these incorrect statements in my witness statement? And if so, in what context? Do I incorporate the repondent response on ET3 into my witness statement? Or leave it for the submission?

 

All help is appreciated.

[Sidewinder]

Any Witness Statement must include a statement of truth, and be signed and dated, so you would know at that stage who is saying what. You can refer to the ET3 in your own statement,as this will be in the Bundle, pointing out that it contains untruths, and where, but the crucial points will be in the WS documents rather than the ET3 - which in many cases contains standard denials as this is written at an early stage and before the Respondent knows the finer points of your claim.

 

Wait until you have sight of the Statements for the Respondents and frame your questions around these.

[Lolas Cat]

Thanks Sidewinder.

[steampowered]

A word of caution: I think it is very important to make sure that you focus on the points you need to prove in order to win your case. Do not get too distracted by trying to 'frisk' the other side by going through their statements one-by-one.

 

Many litigants in person spend a lot of time and energy trying to debunk their employer's ET3 and witness statements, and end up losing sight of the 'big picture'. This can be a very nasty trap ... keep that big picture in your mind at all times.

 

Very often I take the view that it is not necessary to go through each and every statement to debunk it, and instead adopt a more positive approach of simply putting forward the Claimant's position clearly in their witness statement. If your version of events contradicts the Respondent's version of events it will be self-explanatory that you don't agree with what they have said, without actually needing to go through their ET3/witness statement to say which bits are wrong.

[Sidewinder]

Agreed - it really isn't an exercise in trying to score a point on every single utterence from an employer - although there is some merit in getting the Respondent to admit to a couple of untruths over key points where you can. A skilful cross-examination could see you asking a series of questions leading up to a final one where the Respondent has no option but to admit to an untruth - those are always useful in a tight case where you want to plant the seed of doubt in the Judge's mind as to the credibility of a witness.

 

On the whole however, there is no need to be clever, and unpicking the Respondent's account line by line rather than just over the key facts can divert you from the real issues of the case.

[SweetLorraine]

Hi Lola's Cat,

 

I guess you might be unrepresented? You might consider getting the book mentioned on this website http://etclaims.co.uk/ it takes you through a lot of the basics and lays out much of the process. It also flags up other useful advice as well. I think it is still on its 3rd edition. Money well spent - I wish I had it to hand a lot earlier in my on ET claim. (Have a look for it in your local library as well - though I would be inclined to buy my own copy and have it to hand).

 

Do bear in mind that it doesn't seek to provide all the answers - how could it! Each claim is as individual as the person bringing it, and the Respondent's tactics can vary as well, particularly around the contents of the bundle. So stay in contact here as well.

 

Good luck in 2014..

[Lolas Cat]

Thanks for you advise, guys & girls.

 

Ultimately, I need a place/context where I can destroy the respondent's credibility. And I was wondering if my witness statement was the right place for it or if I should save it for the cross-examination of the witnesses. However, it is difficult to attribute the statements made on ET3 and Further and Better Particulars to a particular person and the respondent refuses to give me the names of the people who provided the "facts" mentioned on these docs.

 

The other problem is that they seem not to call all the important witnesses to the trial and they refuse to give me their addresses so I can apply for a order to call them myself.

Edited December 27, 2013 by Lolas Cat

[Lolas Cat]

SweetLorraine,

 

I have the book and it's excellent. Bought a Kindle edition which was way cheaper than the paper.

Also, Naomi Harris's book about bringing an ET claim is excellent.

Edited December 28, 2013 by Lolas Cat

[Sidewinder]

If you put too much in your WS then the Respondent will have ample opportunity before the full merits hearing to think of a plausible response to an obvious line of questioning - there is nothing to be gained, and quite a lot to lose by telegraphing your questions!

 

Wait until you exchange statements and then frame your questions accordingly, and in such a way that there is no room for manoeuvre. The WS is your evidence in chief, and the ET3 is only a relatively minor document - they are often drafted to a template by the Respondent's legal advisors, and in such a way that they do not address many of the issues, and rubbish your claim from the outset. If there is a blatant untruth, then ask a question under cross examination of the Respondent's main witness asking whether they made a particular statement, for example, but otherwise it isn't a big deal as said before - the majority of the evidence - and certainly the bits that the Judge will read to form his impression of the case, will be the Witness Statements.

 

Once again, regarding witnesses, best wait until the exchange of statements to determine who you might wish to call. If a particular witness has provided a statement then it may be appropriate at that point to put the respondent on notice that you will call them as a witness, and if necessary you can ask the Tribunal to order this - the employer is unlikely to help for Data protection reasons in any case. If they haven't provided a statement, then see what mention is made of those witnesses in the other statements, and whether you actually need to cross examine those people, or whether you can ask questions of the main witnesses in order to knock out the credibility of that evidence. This is sometimes easier than asking the person themselves, especially considering that they may be reluctant if they are still employed by the Respondent.

[Pusillanimous]

Don't waste time arguing with the respondent; that's all over now. Aim everything at the tribunal. Don't waste your energy rebutting false statements Do it at the hearing..

[Lolas Cat]

Thanks everyone.

 

They setlled now for the sum I wanted, so no trial then.

Edited January 7, 2014 by Lolas Cat

[billybobynumeroduo]

Any Witness Statement must include a statement of truth, and be signed and dated, so you would know at that stage who is saying what. You can refer to the ET3 in your own statement,as this will be in the Bundle, pointing out that it contains untruths, and where, but the crucial points will be in the WS documents rather than the ET3 - which in many cases contains standard denials as this is written at an early stage and before the Respondent knows the finer points of your claim.

 

Wait until you have sight of the Statements for the Respondents and frame your questions around these.

 

Hi Sidewinder,

 

you state that "Any Witness Statement must include a statement of truth, and be signed and dated". Please can you confirm why in my ET hearing Neither my witness statement nor any of the Respondents' witness statements were either signed or dated. I feel this is a grave error on someone's behalf!

 

Thanks

 

BB

[Emmzzi]

Thanks everyone.

 

They setlled now to the sum I wanted, so no trial then.

 

Oh that is good news!

[honeybee13]

That's brilliant, well done. I'll amend your thread title. Thank you for letting us know, it's always nice to see a thread through to the end. And as you may know, it will help future caggers.

 

HB

[Lolas Cat]

Thanks HoneyBee.

 

Settled for 650% of their first settlement offer, to add some detail.

[Lolas Cat]

Hi Sidewinder,

 

you state that "Any Witness Statement must include a statement of truth, and be signed and dated". Please can you confirm why in my ET hearing Neither my witness statement nor any of the Respondents' witness statements were either signed or dated. I feel this is a grave error on someone's behalf!

 

Thanks

 

BB

 

Sorry, I wasn't the receipient of the question, but if it was not signed the judge was supposed to ask them to sign on the spot at the hearing.

Have seen it myself many times.

[citizenB]

Very pleased to hear that this is now settled, Lolas cat

[billybobynumeroduo]

Hi Lola;s cat

 

first congratulations on your settlement, you have saved yourself alot of heartache so well done!

 

Thanks for answering my question re signed witness statements, re my hearing the judge never mentioned that the statements were not signed. Is this some kind of procedural error that would go in my favour?

 

I mean the statements could have been writing by any tom, dick or sally. It is a basic thing I would have expected the judges to pick up on this!

[Lolas Cat]

Hi Lola;s cat

 

first congratulations on your settlement, you have saved yourself alot of heartache so well done!

 

Thanks for answering my question re signed witness statements, re my hearing the judge never mentioned that the statements were not signed. Is this some kind of procedural error that would go in my favour?

 

I mean the statements could have been writing by any tom, dick or sally. It is a basic thing I would have expected the judges to pick up on this!

 

Hmmm.... Were you representing yourself?

Otherwise, your representative should have reacted to this.

[billybobynumeroduo]

Hmmm.... Were you representing yourself?

Otherwise, your representative should have reacted to this.

 

Hi there,

 

thanks again for your response.

Nope I was not representing myself, however I may aswell have been. I had paid counsel. They were completely useless so it comes as no surprise that they missed yet again another detail.

 

However I would have hoped that the judge would have picked up on this..

 

Regards

 

BB

[Sidewinder]

Hi there,

 

thanks again for your response.

Nope I was not representing myself, however I may aswell have been. I had paid counsel. They were completely useless so it comes as no surprise that they missed yet again another detail.

 

However I would have hoped that the judge would have picked up on this..

 

Regards

 

BB

 

I am surprised too - at a Tribunal I attended last Summer, it was one of the first things the Judge checked in the preliminaries on the day. Both sides would normally sign the copies to be used at the Tribunal immediately before the hearing starts.

[Sidewinder]

Thanks everyone.

 

They setlled now for the sum I wanted, so no trial then.

 

Brilliant news - well done for remaining focussed and willing to see the process through

[billybobynumeroduo]

I am surprised too - at a Tribunal I attended last Summer, it was one of the first things the Judge checked in the preliminaries on the day. Both sides would normally sign the copies to be used at the Tribunal immediately before the hearing starts.

 

Hi sidewinder,

 

thanks again for clarifying this. Do I stand any chance of remedy for this situation?

[Sidewinder]

Unlikely - I would say that you would have to have challenged this at the time, but I will leave the question open for others to answer - perhaps Becky, as my knowledge of Tribunal procedure is nowhere near as in-depth as hers.

[Lolas Cat]

Brilliant news - well done for remaining focussed and willing to see the process through

 

Thanks SW.

 

Yes, I am kind of half-sorry the hearing will not happen.

It may sound weird for many people but I enjoyed doing all this by myself. It was fun.

 

But then I didn't have any mortgages to pay or immediate money problems.

Edited January 8, 2014 by Lolas Cat