Tweet
Hello,
I took my employer to a tribunal for sex discrimination and lost.
I am now appealing the decision. I have a couple of questions for any legal boffins on here:
1. Why is it, in a criminal court if a witness lies, it will probably mean a case is thrown out. But in an employment tribunal/ civil court, why is it that when someone lies under oath, the ET not only allows the respondent to carry on with its evidence, but it also allows (and accepts as truth) all the rest of the "evidence" supplied by the witness who just lied. I just can't get my head around it!
2. At the end of a tribunal is it right that a judge can ask both parties to give an oral submission and disallow written submissions? In my case that is what happened and it threw me sideways. I came expecting to just put in a written submission and leave! The judge said there was a stated case, but did not explain which one it was.
So I am looking to appeal to the employment appeal tribunal. My understanding is that they only consider errors in law. Again for any legal minds on here, are any of the following errors in law:
3. The respondent states that any evidence produced after ACAS conciliation began was legally privileged. The ET accepted that. But I spoke to ACAS and they confirmed that it was not right (only comms between the conciliator and the respondent are legally privileged). Has the ET erred in law by wrongly accepting the respondent's excuse for not fully disclosing all evidence to me?
4. During cross examination, the counsel for the respondent began communicating with the witness, whilst the panel were making notes. The judge mentions this in his written decision, stating that counsel and the witness denied this, but the witness went onto say at one point counsel did have a shocked look on his face. This is indirect communication from counsel, which the ET appear to have glossed over. Is this an error in law?
5. If the employer has a company policy, but the ET ignores the policy and applies a less strenuous thought process to the issue, than had the company policy been followed, has the ET erred in law?
6. If a respondent witness says ABC in its statement, but during cross examination agrees that they were incorrect on some points (XYZ). In the ET decision the judge only mentions ABC and fails to mention anything about XYZ, is that an error in law?
7. If the ET decision has factual errors in it's conclusion, is that an error in law?
With the points above, could you please indicate what kind of error in law would it be?
application of the wrong legal test
inadequate reasons
no evidence
perversity
bias/ apparent bias
Finally, can anyone point me to a link where an example of an EAT form 1 has been structured well?
Many thanks!
I took my employer to a tribunal for sex discrimination and lost.
I am now appealing the decision. I have a couple of questions for any legal boffins on here:
1. Why is it, in a criminal court if a witness lies, it will probably mean a case is thrown out. But in an employment tribunal/ civil court, why is it that when someone lies under oath, the ET not only allows the respondent to carry on with its evidence, but it also allows (and accepts as truth) all the rest of the "evidence" supplied by the witness who just lied. I just can't get my head around it!
2. At the end of a tribunal is it right that a judge can ask both parties to give an oral submission and disallow written submissions? In my case that is what happened and it threw me sideways. I came expecting to just put in a written submission and leave! The judge said there was a stated case, but did not explain which one it was.
So I am looking to appeal to the employment appeal tribunal. My understanding is that they only consider errors in law. Again for any legal minds on here, are any of the following errors in law:
3. The respondent states that any evidence produced after ACAS conciliation began was legally privileged. The ET accepted that. But I spoke to ACAS and they confirmed that it was not right (only comms between the conciliator and the respondent are legally privileged). Has the ET erred in law by wrongly accepting the respondent's excuse for not fully disclosing all evidence to me?
4. During cross examination, the counsel for the respondent began communicating with the witness, whilst the panel were making notes. The judge mentions this in his written decision, stating that counsel and the witness denied this, but the witness went onto say at one point counsel did have a shocked look on his face. This is indirect communication from counsel, which the ET appear to have glossed over. Is this an error in law?
5. If the employer has a company policy, but the ET ignores the policy and applies a less strenuous thought process to the issue, than had the company policy been followed, has the ET erred in law?
6. If a respondent witness says ABC in its statement, but during cross examination agrees that they were incorrect on some points (XYZ). In the ET decision the judge only mentions ABC and fails to mention anything about XYZ, is that an error in law?
7. If the ET decision has factual errors in it's conclusion, is that an error in law?
With the points above, could you please indicate what kind of error in law would it be?
application of the wrong legal test
inadequate reasons
no evidence
perversity
bias/ apparent bias
Finally, can anyone point me to a link where an example of an EAT form 1 has been structured well?
Many thanks!
Comment