Invited to a disciplinary

[ULA]

Unfortunately rulings in higher courts are considered to be higher authority when it comes to presenting case law at a Tribunal hearing. So a quick learning lesson is if you find case law at an Employment Tribunal that may assist your claim, always check there as not been an appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal then potentially Court of Appeal or higher.

I would just say that the ET process can be stressful and overwhelming for a litigant in person, as I assume that you are, so the best thing to do is take this a stage at a time.

Currently, until you receive the ET3 and any Grounds of Resistance document from the college, or if they have now instructed a law firm then a solicitor, you do not know what their defence will be. Therefore at the moment you only have half the picture ,which is what your claim is and the evidence you have to prove that claim for which you can start researching case law to support your case with legal arguments.

Once you know the defence being put in by the college, then you can start to think how you will "attack" that defence and again what case law there may be to assist you in that.

[NoPaddle]

We know they breached their own rules and employment laws as its all documented. Their defence can only be the question of why they breached their own rules and employment laws, but it wouldn't change the fact that they breached those things. If their defence contradicts the documented notes they made at the time, then their defence must be lies. Im just preparing by looking at cases regarding the breaches we know about, and will argue any inconsistency between the documented notes and their defence if any occur.

[ULA]

Definitely good preparation in the meantime until you get their defence documents through. At least then you will know how they will argue your claim.

[NoPaddle]

They deny everything yet inadvertently make several statements that support my case.

Their ET3 form is full of inaccuracies eg they claim that I admitted to the allegation, which I did not. They claim that I made multiple threats of legal action against them, which i did not; in fact i pointed out multiple times they were in breach of employment law and informed them of the consequences should it go to tribunal. Do I just leave these inaccuracies now and address them at tribunal, or do i contact the tribunal and list them all?

[Benny8902]

They deny everything yet inadvertently make several statements that support my case.

Their ET3 form is full of inaccuracies eg they claim that I admitted to the allegation, which I did not. They claim that I made multiple threats of legal action against them, which i did not; in fact i pointed out multiple times they were in breach of employment law and informed them of the consequences should it go to tribunal. Do I just leave these inaccuracies now and address them at tribunal, or do i contact the tribunal and list them all?

Leave their inaccuracies.

It wouldnt be within the 'overriding objective' to email the tribunal. And when you think about it - them asserting inaccuracies when you have "evidence" or whatever then it makes them look bad. You can address those points at substantive hearing, by means of witness statement, evidence, or during cross-examination.

[NoPaddle]

Leave their inaccuracies.

It wouldnt be within the 'overriding objective' to email the tribunal. And when you think about it - them asserting inaccuracies when you have "evidence" or whatever then it makes them look bad. You can address those points at substantive hearing, by means of witness statement, evidence, or during cross-examination.

All the inaccuracies were written by a solicitor in what I believe is an attempt to mislead a tribunal. Can I report the solicitor to the SRA?

[NoPaddle]

The solicitor has not responded to all the claims I made in the ET1 form. What he has done is respond to a few then stated 'Any failure to respond should not be taken as an admission'.

That's all very well and good for him but, as far as I am concerned, failure to respond to a particular claim will be taken as not challenging the claim and therefore the claim being true. Don't know if a tribunal will see it that way, or will respondent be allowed to challenge claims at tribunal which they failed to challenge at ET3 stage?

Regarding the ET3 form; all the solicitor has written in the ET3 form are their contact details, nothing else. A document was attached to the ET3 form containing the grounds for resistance but, nothing on the ET3 form itself tells you it was attached or tells you to refer to it. A technical issue I agree but can they rely on the attached document if there is no mention of it in the actual ET3 form?

[Benny8902]

All the inaccuracies were written by a solicitor in what I believe is an attempt to mislead a tribunal. Can I report the solicitor to the SRA?

No. ET3 are always full of a pack of lies. You have other opportunities to deal with the Respondent at a later date.

If you look at case law taking the approach of complaining to SRA looks very bad on you.

[Benny8902]

The solicitor has not responded to all the claims I made in the ET1 form. What he has done is respond to a few then stated 'Any failure to respond should not be taken as an admission'.

That's all very well and good for him but, as far as I am concerned, failure to respond to a particular claim will be taken as not challenging the claim and therefore the claim being true. Don't know if a tribunal will see it that way, or will respondent be allowed to challenge claims at tribunal which they failed to challenge at ET3 stage?

Regarding the ET3 form; all the solicitor has written in the ET3 form are their contact details, nothing else. A document was attached to the ET3 form containing the grounds for resistance but, nothing on the ET3 form itself tells you it was attached or tells you to refer to it. A technical issue I agree but can they rely on the attached document if there is no mention of it in the actual ET3 form?

Standard statement most solicitors make. Wouldn't worry about that at all. It will be a matter for evidence and cross examination as stated before.

And yes that's how it works they sent in ET3 and attach their grounds of resistance to it, doesn't matter if they don't say "See attached" its still normal and tribunal won't really comment on it