Statement of truth in defence/application

[ecalid]

Hi guys.

I'm currently engaged in a claim with my ex employer for automatically unfair dismissal and constructive dismissal.

The overall feel of the respondents defence is primarily aimed at putting me into a bad light with little to no corroborating evidence.

A long story short the respondent had applied to strike out part of my claim but as they have replied with the ET3 and has applied inside, I am led to believe that they are not required to sign a statement of truth by way of part 22 cpr.

Is this true?

[ULA]

Just for clarity how has the respondent communicated the request for part of the claim to be struck out. Was that separately or contained within their ET3 response. Has there been an judgement on that from the Tribunal Judge?

[ecalid]

Hi it was within their ET3 then the respondent added me into an email which asked to convert the hearing day into the preliminary hearing.

[ecalid]

No response from the tribunal so far.

[ULA]

So it sounds like the respondent followed up their ET3 response, that part of the claim should be struck out and copied you into correspondence to that effect which they have sent to Tribunal, something they are required to do. I presume they are requesting that a preliminary hearing is held to see if they can persuade the judge to strike out part of your claim.

You need to be given a reasonable opportunity to make representations either in writing or if a preliminary hearing is granted then this needs to be done at the hearing.

[ecalid]

Yep. They want to strike out atleast one of my claims on the basis that it stands no reasonable prospect of success.

Their defence relies heavily on hearsay though and not hard evidence. Facebook messages taken out of the wrong context etc.

When will I be given the opportunity to oppose the application? I am drafting a witness statement in opposition but could do with a few pointers to be honest.

[ecalid]

Also its notable that they have also applied for a hearing for the day after the preliminary hearing in an attempt to claw back costs on the basis that my claim stands no reasonable prospect of success.

If i remember, the respondent indicated they intend to claw back upto 20k in legal fees. A very floated figure tbh.

[ULA]

Now that the respondent has submitted the ET3 then a judge will review and give initial consideration to the claim and the response. If it is felt that any part of or all of either the ETI or ET3 should be struck out based on reasonable prospect of success and additionally for your ETI if the tribunal has no jurisdiction then you will be notified and the relevant party concerned will be given the opportunity to make written representations for why the claim or particular part should not be struck out.

[ecalid]

Hi just to let you know. The judge has denied their application on the grounds of fact finding. The hearing is scheduled for 7th october

[ETFarce]

Hi just to let you know. The judge has denied their application on the grounds of fact finding. The hearing is scheduled for 7th october

Hope its not with this judge http://www.notfittojudge.co.uk/

[ULA]

Hi ecalid thanks for the update.

[ecalid]

I have just realised that i have not signed my own statement of case properly and have just put my name followed by the date.

Should I worry about this? The respondent hasn't picked up on this yet but they may do in the coming weeks.

Is there any way that I can remedy this?

[ULA]

I presume that you are meaning your Witness Statement?

If so the sign off should include wording such as "The contents of this statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief", which then just needs your signature, printed name and date.

What have you actually done?

[ecalid]

Hi sorry I meant my statement of case. Particulars of claim, etc.

I had just put my Name and a Date.

Also I have a really important question to ask Ula.

I have submitted my documents to the respondent which contained a facebook message or two between myself and an ex colleague. The respondent has provided almost a full conversation between us but has omitted particular messages that could have a detrimental affect on their defense.

I have asked them to accept a change of documents so that I can include the FULL message history but the respondent has now asked to delay the trading of witness statements for well over another month.

Our witness statements are due in on Friday according to the case management, but I need to know if I can get this full conversation added to my documents.

Considering that the only detriment I would suffer is that already found inside the conversation that they have submitted, surely I am able to get full disclosure?

Please help!!!

[ecalid]

Please help!