Preliminary ET hearing - berated by Judge for self representing?

[Shannara]

Hi :beagle2222:'s!
Have just joined the forum tonight having been reading the site for several months in the lead up to my Employment Tribunal.
I am taking my employer to ET for disability discrimination (i. harassment directly linked to disability, complete with a catalogue of written evidence ii. failure to make reasonable adjustment iii. victimisation following my grievance hearings).
To cut a *VERY* long story short, I had my preliminary hearing this week. I am self representing and the first thing that happened upon entering the hearing room was the judge asking why I have no representation, my response (which I felt very uncomfortable having to give in front of the employer and their cutting edge barrister) was "finances".. and the judge bit back with "thats not an excuse.. you are still employed!... you should think very hard about using some of your money for this!"... I tried to explain that I am now working p/t hours (due to psych. injury caused by this case) and was on a low wage to begin with - all of my money is taken up with family and home expenses and I also have significant debt. Two things really bothered me about this - 1. Is this a normal line of questioning for a judge and 2. Was it really appropriate for me to have to answer that in front of the respondent? I felt rather humiliated.

To be honest the whole experience was quite horrid.... I am suffering from a psych injury that I detailed in my ET1 to take into account & explain that I experience high levels of anxiety, I also have a neurological and communication disorder that causes similar effects.. none of this appeared to be taken into consideration in the way the judge was conversing with me. I ended up extremely upset and having an anxiety attack (which I'm sure the other side loved)... but the judge chastised me for this too saying I clearly couldn't cope with the process.

Case wise, things are still OK, another PH is scheduled following submission of more particulars and the points of the case that can be brought are defined. I just wondered if it were normal to feel thoroughly chastised as the claimant by the judge for not having a legal rep... and to be honest felt attacked the whole way through without being allowed to answer more than two words before being cut off...

:doggieyes: has anyone had anything similar? or perhaps was the judge purposefully being this way to give me a taste of what to expect. i left there wanting to chuck myself off a high building.

[angelicangel]

Re: Preliminary ET hearing - berated by Judge for self representing?

I too was a litigant in person at the Employment Tribunal and I felt I was treated with contempt from the moment my hearing commenced and like you, I was cut off at every opportunity by the Judge, the Respondent was allowed to change evidence after cross examination and when caught out the Judge asked and answered questions, which felt like a get out clause for them.

Justice only seems to be served if you have deep pockets in my opinion.

[Ripped-Off]

Re: Preliminary ET hearing - berated by Judge for self representing?

It depends on what type of judge you get I suppose.

My company represented itself in a small claims hearing just prior to Xmas. The judge was very strict, none of the informal hearing malarkey. Claimant on side of the courtroom, defendant on the other and very strict on who was allowed to speak and what evidence he would allow. Both sides commented that the judge had adopted the most rigid and adversarial approach that they had ever come across in a small claims hearing.

Anyway, not long into the process it should have been obvious to both parties that the judge had already made up his mind. I think his attempts to try and get the parties to settle (twice during the hearing he sent them out to negotiate) was, in hindsight, a giveaway.

[Openlaw15]

Re: Preliminary ET hearing - berated by Judge for self representing?

Tribunal is a bit of a misnomer...as courts have judges as do tribunals. The problem with employment tribunals is that judges are used to dealing with legal professionals who know the law and procedure. Litigants in person or lay representatives simply don't, so it likely frustrates judges that non legal personnel are taking a company's employer to court or tribunal for unfair, wrongful dismissal, or discrimination etc. Disability discrimination for psych. injury is a complex matters for instance as it is a very technical type of injury...therefore it usually requires an expert in psych such as a psychologist or psychiatrist. Tribunals do not like it when lay people represent themselves in disability discrimination claims especially. For this reason, they try to sift out the wheat from the chaff by having a preliminary hearing for 'proving a disability' itself even though this is against the nature of equality legislation. Proving disability, which many employees are likely to fail as disability is not easy to prove owing to its technical make-up, unless the person is blind or deaf etc, ie an obvious disability, the claim will fail at this hurdle. Then discrimination is whether the employer can justify the unfair treatment, which again is not so easy.