Being a litigant in person

[benchip]

I've got a preliminary hearing to decide on strike out of the response. It's a 3 hour hearing in person and the details say to have witnesses attend. Now it's real and I'm going to be in the room I'm nervous and worried I'll get frustrated by the creativity of the barrister.

Has anyone got any tips or advice on how to remain composed?

[benchip]

The Tribunal issued an order which states that the respondent provides specific disclosure documents requested by me, 'by return'. How long would you allow for the completion of a 'by return' order?

[ULA]

I am not aware of an actual definition of time i.e. how many days. However, given this is probably going to the respondent who is or was your employer and they may need to find the documents I would give 7 days. If you have not received them by then you should notify the Tribunal and also copy the respondent into the correspondence.

[Amethyst]

Is the hearing of your (claimants) application to strike out the respondents defence ? What's the basic grounds of the claim ? And the basic reason for applying to strike the response ?

Ula

[ULA]

Being a litigant in person can be a very daunting experience.

From what you have said I think you are the claimant if they are looking to strike out the response? Is this all or part of the response?

The information Amethyst has asked about would help.

Do you currently have any witnesses?

[efpom]

I assume from your other threads that this is an Employment Tribunal claim, and that the defendant is facing a strike out as it has not complied with the order of the tribunal. Is that correct?

I suggest that you merge the threads, rather than starting a new thread.

[Amethyst]

Bump for merge ( done )

[benchip]

Hi, I have applied to strike out the response or to issue a deposit order. The judge has allowed the strikeout to be heard and it is on the basis of a poor ET3 response which fails to dispute most of my claims. They do dispute one area of my claim which they cannot substantiate with the evidence they have quoted in the ET3. Because they have stated the Respondent has presented all disclosure in its power and control relevant to the case and the disputed paragraphs were subject to an earlier specific disclosure order, I am looking see if I can get this struck out.

I have a barrister for the full merits hearing (via direct access) but the preliminary hearing will cost 10 hours of cost for 3 hours of time. My plan is to save the cost of my barrister by representing myself. I know the case and disclosure inside out but as the time approaches my nerve is being tested. I guess I am wondering what the best tips are for getting through the hearing and avoiding being tripped up.

Thanks for your help.

[Setmefree3]

I’m quite concerned that so many members who usually contribute to this group are no longer contributing. I’ve always had the greatest of respect for legal beagles,but now it seems that their contributions are no longer recognised. Could be wrong, and greatest of respect to Amethyst for what she has achieved.

[benchip]

The basic grounds of the claim are constructive dismissal where I was asked to accept an out of the blue demotion or be performance managed out of the business by my manager and then by the owner. Then whilst on holiday the company removed one of my team without consulting me, reduced my pay (commission) and applied it retrospectively (without the notice required in my contract), and removed me from an organisational chart. I went through a grievance process where they found 'trust and confidence has been severely damaged all around'. After the appeal, I resigned due to these issues in my resignation letter.

They do not deny most of my claim including what was said in the meeting and by the owner (which is backed up by contemporaneous emails detailing the threat). The primary area of defence is the pay reduction which they say was that t I was missed off a notification email (which they can't produce despite a specific order). They also declared that 'Trust and confidence has been severely damaged all around' in the Grievance report issued to me.

They have produced an email which is inconsistent with the other evidence where after an application to the tribunal they were ordered to provide the native file 'by return' (hence my query about the timeframes to be expected for a response). The metadata and contents of the email indicate that this is dishonest which with the inconsistency of the ET3 defence for commission led me to make my application for a strikeout.

I haven't got any witnesses for the Preliminary Hearing. From a previous telephone hearing and the state of the ET1 response they are relying on their Witness Statements (if we get to this stage), they have four witnesses and we are scheduled for four days for the full hearing in November.

I appreciate that aiming for a strikeout is a high bar to achieve if there is the possibility of a fair trial. If I can get the commission defence struck out their ET3 response fails to deny my complaint in the other areas. Also, the inconsistencies with the email are evident (pointing to evidence tampering).

As a litigant in person, it takes me a bit of time to comprehend the legal standing and where best to focus. Having time to type, retype, think, research, has helped me to overcome a combative respondent representative. With the hearing, I am worried about escaping the safety of having books, the internet, and time to consider how to deal with a Tribunal matter. For the hearing, I know that I have the knowledge of the case and wonder how to best prepare for a strikeout hearing, tips for remaining composed, how to be likeable to the judge, and useful information that will put me in a good light.

[ULA]

Law is made more complex by the legal jargon in my opinion, so trying to navigate your way through it as a litigant in person can be very daunting and does require, as you have found out patience and time to research. A combative representative on the other side does not help either.

It sounds like you have mastered one factor which is to know your case inside out and prepare in advance.

For the strike out you are trying to prove to the Tribunal that the whole or part of the ET3 and other documents that the respondent has been ordered to disclose provide no reasonable grounds for defending the claim that you have brought. Firstly, the respondent from what you have said has not denied part of the claim so that is a good place to start particularly of there are no coherent statement of facts that supports their defence. The second is to go through the facts that the respondent has set out, which while they might be coherent, would not, even if true, amount in law to a defence to the claim you are making. So, for that finding some case law or legislation to support there is no legal defence would help to support your case to strike out.

I am sure you are already doing this but prepare your arguments/points in a logical order and type or hand-write these out in advance. It is easy to get side-tracked by a question from the Judge or some point raised by the respondent’s representative so having good notes to refer to can help to bring you back on track.

I suggest if there are key bits of reference material you have relied on from books or the internet, then try and condense them down to some key points and type or hand-write them up and take those notes with you. Referring to notes during the hearing will be allowed. At least then you may feel that you have some sort of “safety” in place because they are trusted sources for you to refer to as you need to.

This is easier said than done but try and stay as calm and focused as possible. Just be polite and respectful to the Judge and also when dealing with the respondent’s representative. Do not be rushed into answering questions, if you need time to consult your notes or to formulate your response then take it.

Hope this has helped and if you need anything else just ask.

[benchip]

Thank you, everyone, for your help so far. Your help got me through the preliminary hearing with a few battle scars. The Judge was not keen to be there and rejected my Strikeout and Deposit order request. He did put a note of costs in the judgement and said that the Respondent has prepared a 'poorly drafted response'. Now it is onwards and upwards to the main hearing!

I am discussing the bundle with the Respondents solicitor and I have a question that I hope someone can shed some light on. I was previously represented and my solicitor sent a 'without prejudice' email to the company, one of the managers at the time of my grievance put a quote in an email to me about some timeframes from the without prejudice email, in quotation marks.

I have said to the Respondents solicitor that they should redact the quote as this came from a protected email and should not be disclosed to the Tribunal. They are saying that it is not protected and they will not redact.

Can someone help me understand whether it should be protected from the Tribunal or not?

Thank you in advance.

[ULA]

Technically that content should not have been included but because it was then quoted in a not marked without prejudice email, that does raise concerns about how this should be treated. Are your current discussions with the lawyers about the bundle are on record?

If not then I would probably suggest that you need to put your redaction request in written correspondence to bring it into the bundle so that the judge becomes aware there is disputed content in the bundle.

[benchip]

All correspondence is on the record at the moment. Would asking them to include the relating correspondence in the bundle of it is on the record work as a tactic?

In my mind it pushes therm to admit that they can't.

Any thoughts?

[ULA]

If you mean by the "relating correspondence" your request for the redaction of the quote, then if all correspondence is on record then it should be in the bundle but for "belt and braces" you can always gently "remind" them that this correspondence needs to included.