Hearing in chambers in the ET

[ULA]

clana firstly just to say, we are all volunteers and not always online to respond back as soon as people post.

I asked a really important questions in my post #8 which I believe is still unanswered. This hearing aside, where are you in the Tribunal process?
Have there been any hearings prior to this one, if so what tyoe of hearing was it?
Until I know the answer to these questions I cannot respond to your post #14.

What are your specific reasons for not accepting a hearing in chambers with no parties present as you will need to set this out in the application?

if the hearing is this week you will need to ensure the application is in very soon and copied to the other side.

[clana]

There has already been a full merit hearing during which I already made an application fora Preparation Time Order in my favour which was ignored so I have to make a second application

I would like to have an oral hearing because usually the issue of costs is discussed during a remedies hearing but I do not know if there is rule which gives a right to a hearing concerning issues of costs. Morever, the hearing listed for next week is not a hearing because it is a consideration on papers so why it is called a hearing and why a notice of hearing has been issued is a mystery. It is always better before a hearing takes place that mysteries are clarified to understand really what happen.

It is always better to have an oral hearing concerning issues of costs to be able to give our opinion and to inform the judge if he forgets somthing important because a lot of money could be involved

[ULA]

By full merit hearing I assume you mean a final hearing and it sounds like you have already made an application for a PTO for which the Tribunal seems to have found in your favour. Has the respondent not complied with the order to pay the associated costs hence the reason why you have made a second application?

[clana]

The tribunal at the end of the full merit hearing ignored my first application for a Preparation Time Order and it is why I had to make a second application

[ULA]

When you day your first application for a PTO was ignored what you do mean. Did they run out of time in the allocated schedule for the full merit hearing or was your application rejected?

[clana]

The tribunal simply did not consider it

[ULA]

If you have provided the Tribunal your PTO application and any supporting documentation and the respondent has been given the opportunity to respond then the judge should have all the relevant information to make a decision. This can be done without a hearing effectively in chambers based on the evidence provided.

There are reported cases where this has happened so a perfectly acceptable way for the Tribunals to deal with a PTO application.

[atticus]

by reference to post no 9, it would appear that this hearing has now taken place.

[clana]

Yes, this hearing in Chambers has now taken place and my application for a Preparation Time Order has been rejected.

As explained in a previous post in the Notice of Hearing it is stated

"the hearing will be conducted by an Employment Judge in chambers"

However, this is not what has happenned because my application has been considered by a panel of three members made up of a judge and two lay members.

This panel is the same as this which heard the full merit hearing with the same judge and the same two lay members but this time withoiut the parties being allowed to be attend.

Hence, the truth was concealed from me and I was misled by this Notice of Hearing which says that this hearing will be conducted in Chambers by an Employment judge alone

I would like to know if this is legal and if it is legal that the panel of the initial full merit hearing met again but this time without the parties being allowed to attend

[clana]

I would like to know if I have a ground of appeal because this story of a panel of the full merit hearing meeting again secretly "in Chanbers" without the parties being allowed to attend is strange. Which is the law who regulates this?

[clana]

I have retrieved the Cause List published in the Internet of the day when this hearing took place and this hearing is indicated in it.

In this circumstance I would like to know if the judge was right to prevent the parties from attending this hearing.

My requests for an oral hearing were rejected by the judge. However, the fact that this hearing was in the Cause List of this day means that an oral hearing took place nevertheless.

I suppose that all hearings listed in the Cause List can be attended by the parties even though for some of them the public in not allowed to attend it.

I suppose that all hearings listed in the Cause List of a day are oral hearing and not hearing on papers.

Are not all hearings conducted by a panel of three members oral hearings to which at least the parties can attend especially if they are listed in the Cause List of the day in the Internet?

The Parties who were misled by the judge believed that no oral hearing will take place and as a consequence they did not look on the Cause List of this day and did go to the Employment Tribunal to attend this hearing.

What would have happened if the claimant or the respondent would have looked in the Cause List and noticed that this oral hearing will take place and would have gone to the Employment Tribunal to attend it, would have they been prevented by the employees of the Employment Tribunal from attending this hearing even though it was stated in the Cause List of this day?

[clana]

I would like to know also if I can lodge a complaint against the judge because the parties have not attending this oral hearing which was listed in the Cause List because they were misled by the judge in believing that this oral hearing will not take place