Legalities around evidence bundles for employment tribunals

[Narratik]

I have an upcoming hearing for an employment tribunal. The Respondent broke the case management orders by submitting their witness statements to me late, but I received them nonetheless. Having now reviewed my witness statement the Respondent has emailed me additional documentation (to try and counter some of the points in my witness statement) and told me they will simply add these documents to the evidence bundle and recirculate, even though the case management orders deadline for sharing documentation with each party for the evidence bundle expired months ago and we agreed on the bundle compilation at that time.

Can anyone tell me, are they allowed to do this? It would seem inappropriate given that they could effectively fabricate evidence - I thought this was exactly why case management orders stipulated evidence sharing ahead of witness statements. Any advice greatly appreciated.

[ULA]

The duty of disclosure extends to the end of the proceedings therefore if documents to which that duty extends come to a party’s notice at any time during the proceedings, they must immediately notify the other party.

[Narratik]

It has to prejudice the case though right? For example, I have a witness statement that's already been submitted which refers to specific pages within the bundle. With new documents being injected afterwards the make up of the bundle changes and the witness statement no longer corresponds to the right page numbers. That makes referring your statements back to the evidence bundle impossible on the day.

[ULA]

Is the Respondent represented? If so it is up to their representative to update the bundle.

[Narratik]

They are yes, and they've updated the bundle and submitted it. It's just frustrating because my witness statement refers to page numbers in the bundle that are now all inaccurate because of the new inclusions. So do their witness statements, but they have the resource to go and update them now anyway whereas I do not necessarily as I'm self representing and now need to review over a hundred pages of information to see if there is anything else they changed.

[ULA]

I appreciate the frustration but with the duty of disclosure effectively an ongoing one through the process this situation is not unheard of.