Confidential information disclosure

[ULA]

You should consider this as the final version.

However if you realise that your statement has left out something relevant when you receive the other party’s statements or further documents are disclosed between now and the hearing date that may impact your witness statement, you should make a supplementary statement and send it immediately to the other party.

[Claimant0777]

Am I correct to assume that the Respondent organization should collect and send all WSs from a number of individuals as part of the bundle? Or will I read their WSs only on the day we exchange the WS?

[ULA]

What does your Case Management Order state about:

a) exchange of witness statements
b) preparation of the bundle

[Claimant0777]

Preparation of the bundle comes first and then exchange of the WSs.

[ULA]

In that case you will receive the information in that order and on the dates given in the CMO.

[Claimant0777]

Hi,

The Respondent is late with their bundle preparation and it is only 2.5 half weeks left the deadline for submitting the WS. What can I do?

Is it possible to write the WS without the bundle?

[Claimant0777]

By the way, they had applied for an extension of deadline for orders before and it had been refused.

[ULA]

When was the date on the CMO for the bundle to be with you?

[Claimant0777]

Last Friday.

[ULA]

in which case the first thing to do is email the respondent TODAY and request the bundle to be provided to you pointing out that it was due under the CMO last Friday. Go on to say that if you have not had the bundle by the end of the day next Wed then you will be making an application to the Tribunal for disclosure of the bundle.

I do have some template wording I can post up if it comes to you having to make the application.

[Claimant0777]

Hi,

I have a further preliminary hearing next week in which my amendment request will be decided.

What should I prepare for this preliminary hearing? Should I send supporting documents to evidence what I am saying is right?

[ULA]

Prior to the preliminary hearing the Employment Tribunal will usually require both parties to complete an agenda for the hearing. Has this been sent to you?

This is a standard document which is a list of questions about the claim, for example, what the claim is for, what compensation you are seeking and what preliminary issues there are that need to be decided, for example to support a disability or discrimination claim. It then also asks both parties to suggest what directions are needed to get the case ready for a final hearing, for example when disclosure of documents should take place, the number of witnesses and when witness statements should be exchanged and how long the final hearing should be listed for.

[Claimant0777]

Hi,

Thank you for your earlier response Ula.

The further preliminary hearing took place. The judge allowed one of my two amendment applications.

What struck with me was the fact that the judge actively encouraged the Respondent to take a judicial mediation option. Does that mean she could see from the evidence I sent in support of my amendment applications that my case was very strong and likely to win? Or is it a usual practice that they encourage all respondents to use judicial mediation and confirm their response in writing despite it being refused after the first preliminary hearing?

[ULA]

As far as i am aware from your original post you are still employed by your employer. What appears to have happened is that the Judge considers, that as a result of the PHR, the claim is suitable for Judicial Mediation, this is particularly so in claims for discrimination, especially if there is an ongoing relationship between the employer and employee and the employment contract has not ended.

I would think that it is maybe on this basis that that the Judge has activley encouraged this course of action and for both parties to try and resolve the matter this way.

[Claimant0777]

Hello,

Thank you for your support Ula! I really appreciate it.

Could you tell me please what version of the claim after a number of amendments for example will go to the bundle? Or will all of them be included? Will amendment tracking remain as a different colour? If yes, should all deleted phrases be clearly shown after they are allowed to be amended?

In my case, the respondent had asked for amendment, and their request was allowed with a condition that they clearly identify changes made and explain the reason for the change in detail in their WS. After that, there was a further preliminary hearing at which my amendment request was allowed and the respondent also was allowed to amend their et3 after my change.

Now they have amended their response and used an amendment tracking function. However, they had completely removed the earlier allowed deleted phrases which I was saying that they lied and their further correspondence just confirmed that lie. Within their latest et3 that paragraph has been deleted without any trace and they made further changes that they have identified. Is that normal? If the latest version only will be in the bundle then is not it misleading to delete the already allowed deletion without any trace? They could use another tracking colour to identify/track the most recent change?