Hearing in chambers in the ET

[clana]

I made a written application for a Preparation Time Order against the Respondent.

The Employment Tribunal has decided that there will be a hearing during which this application will be considered. However, the Employment Tribunal has decided that this hearing will take place “in chambers” i.e. without the parties having the right to attend.

I prefer to have a normal hearing where I can attend it. I have made several requests to the Employment Tribunal to have a normal hearing but all have been rejected.

I would like to know if a claimant has always the right to request to have a hearing where he can attend. What are the rules about this?

If I disagree with the decision taken at this “in chambers” hearing, can I request to have another hearing to which I can attend?

[atticus]

that is not what in chambers means: usually it means that the hearing is in private, i.e. that the public may not be present.

What makes you think that you are not going to be permitted to attend?

[clana]

In the Notice of Hearing it is stated the following

***FOR INFORMATION ONLY***
NOTICE OF PRELIMINARY HEARING (PRELIMINARY ISSUE)
IN CHAMBERS
Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
The Tribunal has directed that there should be a preliminary hearing.
Parties are not required to attend the hearing in any capacity as the hearing
will be conducted by an Employment Judge in chambers.

“At the preliminary hearing the Tribunal will determine the following preliminary
issue:
• The claimant’s application for a Preparation Time Order”

This Notice of Hearing is strange because in Rules 53 to 56 of the Employment Regulations 2013 about preliminary hearings it is not indicated that parties may not be requested to attend a preliminary hearing.

This Notice of Hearing is strange also because it is stated that a preliminary issue will be considered; however, Rule 56 says that when a preliminary issue is considered the preliminary hearing should be held in public because it says the following:

“When preliminary hearings shall be in public

56. Preliminary hearings shall be conducted in private, except that where the hearing involves a determination under rule 53(1)(b) or (c), any part of the hearing relating to such a determination shall be in public (subject to rules 50 and 94) and the Tribunal may direct that the entirety of the hearing be in public.”

[atticus]

It does not say that you may not attend. Why don't you check with the ET office that you can attend, saying that you wish to make representations in person?

[ULA]

atticus the Notice states "Parties are not required to attend the hearing in any capacity as the hearing will be conducted by an Employment Judge in chambers".

It would be useful to see the full Notice (redacted of personal details) and I think we need more detail other than clana stating they made an application for a Preparation Time Order without any context as to why.

[clana]

The only important information in this Notice of Hearing is this that I already give to you, the other information is only name, address, claim number ...etd

I would like that this hearing takes place in public because I would like that some friends attend this hearing with me. Hence, I would like to receive a reply to the last part of last post which is the following:

“This Notice of Hearing is strange also because it is stated that a preliminary issue will be considered; however, Rule 56 says that when a preliminary issue is considered the preliminary hearing should be held in public because it says the following:

“When preliminary hearings shall be in public

56. Preliminary hearings shall be conducted in private, except that where the hearing involves a determination under rule 53(1)(b) or (c), any part of the hearing relating to such a determination shall be in public (subject to rules 50 and 94) and the Tribunal may direct that the entirety of the hearing be in public.””

[atticus]

It may be semantics, but to me, "not required to" does not mean "are not to"; it suggests that attendance is optional.

Has the OP been given a day and time?

Or is the notice really saying that a judge will consider this application on the papers on the court file?

[ULA]

atticus the great thing about the law is interpretation Potentially yes, I think this is saying that a judge will consider this application based on the papers on the Tribunal file. My understanding is that has the right to make a Preparation Time Order of their own volition, if they deem it appropriate, even without an application being made by either party.

Also the other timeline that would be useful other than when this hearing has been set for, is at what stage in the ET proceedings is clana making the Preparation Time Order application.

[clana]

A hearing has been listed for next week.

This application for a Preparation Time Order has been made by me and not by the tribunal.

Concerning the issue of whether or not the Notice of Hearing really says that a judge will consider this application on the papers on the court file, in this Notice of Hearing the only thing which is stated is the information that I have already provided to you

However, in a Direction from the tribunal sent to me 10 days ago it is stated the following:

“The parties will not attend the hearing as it will be dealt with in
chambers”

And in Acknowledgment of Correspondence from the tribunal sent two weeks ago it is stated

“The Employment Judge has also directed to say that on the basis that the Claimant has no further comments or submissions to add, it is unclear why an oral hearing is needed (on the basis that the Judge will take full account of the submissions by each party). If there are no further submissions to make and there are no additional matters arising, it is proposed to fix a hearing in chambers at which the parties’ respective positions can be considered”

We notice the passage

“it is unclear why an oral hearing is needed”

All this suggest that the intention of the tribunal is that there will not be an oral hearing i.e. the parties will not be able to participate and I would like to know if it is legal and if as a consequence I can make an application against it

[atticus]

Thank you for the additional information which appears to clear things up.

[clana]

I would like to know if this kind of hearing where not only the public are not allowed to attend but also the parties themself is legal?

Which Rule says that the parties have the right to attend this kind of hearing that I can use in an application to request to be allowed to attend this hearing?

[ULA]

The further correspondence you have indicated that has been received from the Tribunal sets out very clearly that the issue to be decided upon i.e. whether you will be allowed to recover your costs for the preparation of your case, will be carried out as a paper review by the Judge sitting on their own, in chambers.

This hearing is not a determination regarding any complaint, or any substantive issue which may determine liability, for example, an issue as to jurisdiction or as to whether an employee was dismissed as set out in 53 (3) and it is therefore quiet feasible that the application can be consider by way of a paper review of your submissions.

[clana]

When an application is considered by a judge without the parties attending any hearing is what we call a consideration “on papers”. However, it is strange because contrary to what has happened with my application in this case there is no need to issue a Notice of Hearing, to list a hearing for a particular date in my case next week and to allocate to it a specific time in my case three hours

I have found information about two kind of hearings, the hearings which are held in public and those which are held in private. I have looked in the rules and in the Internet and I found nothing about a third kind of hearing where the public and the parties are not allowed to attend

[clana]

I would like to know if this issue of Preparation Time Order has something to do with final hearings and as a consequence there should be an oral hearing to consider my application for a Preparation Time Order because Rule 57 of the Employment Regulations 2013 makes reference to costs because it says the following:

“FINAL HEARING
Scope of final hearing

57. A final hearing is a hearing at which the Tribunal determines the claim or such parts as remain outstanding following the initial consideration (under rule 26) or any preliminary hearing. There may be different final hearings for different issues (for example, liability, remedy or costs).”

Hence,the definition of a final hearing according to Rule 57 is a hearing at which the Tribunal determines an issue of costs. However, a Preparation Time Order has to do with costs

Therefore,I would like to know if I can make an application under this Rule 57 to have this application considerd at a final oral hearing.

Moreover, I would like to know if there is a difference between a final hearing and an oral final hearing

[clana]

No one has anything to reply to my two last posts because they raise important issues

I am preparing an application to be allowed to attend this in chambers hearing next week and any additional informaiton will be useful.