Disability discrimination - currently filling in ET1

[n20998]

Hi, I’m currently starting to fill in my ET1 and I’m struggling with what to include and how to structure it.

For background, I’ve been through the dismissal process, appealed, and been through EC. The claims are around disability discrimination during long term absence, failure to make reasonable adjustments and unfair dismissal. The main remedy is injury to feelings, plus unfair dismissal.

1. I’m struggling with the overall structure of the statement part of the form, so any advice would be great.

2. Is there an ideal way of structuring each point?
I’m thinking something like
- this happened
- it was bad because…
- …this law
- the impact was this.
Does that look reasonable? I understand about putting all the points under headings, I guess does that mean I don’t need to include the exact law each time, maybe if I only want to reference case law?

3. Under the remedy section, do I include everything at this stage? I’m thinking of things like interest, loss of statutory rights? I’m also planning to ask for the ACAS uplift, do I mention that at this stage?

any thoughts would be great, thank you,

[ULA]

The ET1 is the main opportunity you have to set out the full details of your claim and the relevant places to do this are sections 8 and 9 of the ET1 form. You can also supplement this with a document called a Particulars of Claim.

The detail needs to be in chronological order, setting out what happened, by whom if relevant, and whether there were any witnesses. What employment legislation is relevant to that particular incident. If you have been researching to make your claim you will know that there are potentially 6 aspects to disability discrimination, some or all of which may be relevant to your claim and you can use these as sub headings. I have set them out below:

• direct discrimination
• indirect discrimination
• discrimination arising from disability
• failure to make reasonable adjustments
• harassment
• victimisation

In terms of remedies, if you are looking for compensation then you need to complete a document known as a Schedule of Loss.

[n20998]

Thanks ULA, I’m going to try to get the basics down and I think that’ll help organise my thoughts, then start linking to the legislation.

I’m still a bit unsure about the schedule of loss, would that section include the ‘extras’ that I mention, with the calculations or would I leave that for later in the process / the judge’s discretion?

[ULA]

The Schedule of Loss (SoL) is a standard document that you should complete at the start of your claim and then you can update it nearer to the final hearing as appropriate.

[n20998]

Thanks Ula. I actually feel like I’m making some progress and able to start getting my details down. Do you have a template that’s specific for a disability discrimination claim? I’m working through your standard template but feel like I’m wanting to change the structure a bit too much to make it all fit together.

[n20998]

Hi Ula, I sent an email to the address for off forum support a couple of weeks ago and haven’t had a response. Just wondering how long that usually takes? Have I not asked an appropriate question? Do I need to get further along in the process first? Many thanks

[ULA]

n20998 I have checked in with the admin team and there has been no email received in respect of off forum advice.

Please can I suggest that you email admin@legalbeagles.info who have let me know they will keep a look out for it. Like the rest of us they are volunteers but usually respond within 48 hours.

[n20998]

ULA, thank you from the response. I’ll do that - I was emailing the other email address admin@legalbeaglesgroup.com maybe that one isn’t active?

Kind regards

[n20998]

Hi, just coming back to this as I’m getting myself in a muddle. I filed my ET1 which was accepted by the court. Respondent says they’ve filed ET3 but I haven’t seen it. Respondent has filed a application to strike out parts of the claim or issue deposit orders, and I’m currently writing my response.

Im struggling to get my head straight on a couple of issues, any help would be greatly appreciated.

1) I thought some of the rules they’d cited were a bit off, then I realised they are using The Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 and I have been looking at The Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. Which one is correct? Does it matter? For clarity, the claim was submitted before 6th Jan 2025 and the application was submitted afterwards.

2) I emailed the court quickly to say please give me some time to respond. The Respondent emailed me to say it was with the Judge now and they will decide (to me, they were saying don’t bother replying…). I don’t think that’s right. Does Rule 30 (31 in the old regs) apply to strike out and deposit order requests? I want to suggest they are trying to take advantage of me as a LIP but not sure if they should have told me I can object to the tribunal.

3) Also they’ve asked that the preliminary hearing be converted to a Public Preliminary Hearing. I don’t think that’s right either, due to Duvenage v NSL Ltd where it was held that the only party that can request a hearing to consider a strike out order is the ‘part in question’ i.e. the party against whom the application for strike out is made. Does that sound about right?

[ULA]

1) As of the 6 Jan the new rules came into effect. The new rules largely replicate the old rules. But some numbering has changed, including rule 37 (striking out) becoming rule 38.This means that any correspondence between the parties and/or the ET since 6 Jan will need to cite the new rule numbers.

2) The now rule 30 Case Management Order was rule 29 in the 2013 version not rule 31. Case Management Orders (CMOs) are timetables, set by the Employment Tribunal, that provide deadlines for the production of documents that will progress the case. These are not related to a strike out or deposit order.
An application by either party sent to the ET must be copied into the other party. It is at that point, that if the other party wants to object, they should submit their objection as soon as possible thereafter. This ensures both the application and the objection correspondence are presented to the Judge.

3) Under rule 54(2) if the preliminary hearing involves a determination under rule 52(1)(b) (preliminary issue) or (c) (strike out), any part of the hearing relating to such a determination must be held in public.
I would therefore surmise that, unless the judge makes a written judgement on strike out, then it will become a determination at a preliminary hearing and the respondent is assuming / clarifying it will be covered by the above rule to be a public hearing. Without seeing the correspondence it is only a view on my part.

[n20998]

Thanks Ula that was really helpful. I got my response sent off and got an interesting, if a little confusing, response from the court. They said “the judge shall discus the request for a PPH to be listed at the hearing [then they added the date of the preliminary hearing]. The tribunal cannot list a strike out application without first making CMOs”.

Does that sound right? Potentially two preliminary hearings?

I’m also wondering - the respondent requested strike out for only part of the claim…does that mean they think the rest of it has merit? Or am I reading too much into things?

[ULA]

Yes there can be more than one preliminary hearing.

It is not that they do not believe it has merit, it is just that there is no criteria under which they can make an application to strike out that part of the claim. So yes reading too much into it, as they will be defending that part of the claim.

[n20998]

Thanks Ula that was helpful. I’ve asked the Respondent to prepare the first draft of the agenda for the PH and I’m a bit surprised by it. They’ve asked for a PPH and the judge has said the application for the strike out will be heard at the PH.

I’ve got an agenda from the Respondent and it’s very sparse. All it mentions is the strike out application and everything else, including list of issues, is TBC or to be dealt with after the strike out application.

Is that the correct approach or should I be preparing something more detailed, and under the assumption the strike out application will fail?

[ULA]

Both parties are required to completed a Case Management Agenda (CMA) document and submit it in advance of the PHR. However if this can be agreed in advance by both parties then it is helpful to the ET and expedites the proceedings.

I suggest depending on the timescales to the PHR, that you therefore complete you own CMA and submitted to the Respondent to see if you can get agreement.

This will then serve, if there is time depending on how long has been allocated to the hearing, for the proceeding to move on if the strike out application fails. You do not want to be put on the back-foot by not preparing. Always better to be over prepared than under prepared.

[n20998]

Thanks Ula. It feels a bit strange as this is a PH coming up in about 6 weeks, and the Respondent keeps asking for a PPH for the strike out application (I’ve asked for it to be decided by the judge based on the written submissions).

So, it seems like the Respondent is just wanting the PH to say let’s come back for a PPH…or, they are wanting me to be unprepared!

Also, seems strange that there are parts of the claim that they haven’t asked to be struck out, yet haven’t mentioned these in the list of issues or in any other substantive part of the agenda.

The only direction we’ve had from the Judge is that we shall discuss the request for a public preliminary hearing to be listed at the hearing. The Tribunal cannot list a strike out application without first making case management orders.