TRY ME!
Employment Tribunal Appeal Delays
Summary
The Employment Tribunal (ET) sent documents to the wrong email, causing delays in appeals. Procedural errors, like conflating orders, and ignoring applications for evidence use, impacted case management. The ETs handling of witness evidence and failure to address applications affected fairness. A threat in January 2024 suggests bias, highlighting the need for an extension to ensure a fair hearing. Consider consulting a legal expert for guidance.Full Conversation
CAN YOU SEE MY LAST CONVERSATION JUST NOW?
I don't have access to past conversations, but I'm here to help. Could you please clarify what specific assistance or information you need regarding your Employment Tribunal (ET) case and appeal?
WHY DID THE REFISTRAR SAY THE MERITS OF MY APPEAL/CASE ARE NOT RELEVANT TO THE DECISION OF ASKING FOR EXTENSION OF TIME?
In procedural matters such as extensions of time, the tribunal typically considers factors like:
- The length of the delay. - The reasons for the delay. - Whether there is any prejudice to the other party.
- Whether the applicant has acted promptly once aware of the need to apply for an extension.
However, if you believe that the merits of your case are crucial to understanding the context of the delay, it is important to present this argument clearly in your challenge.
Would you like to connect with local lawyers who can better assist you with your case? If so, I will need to ask you a few mandatory questions to proceed.
The registrar likely stated that the merits of your appeal are not relevant to the decision on an extension of time because procedural matters focus on factors like delay length, reasons for the delay, and any potential prejudice to the other party. The merits of the case might be considered separately.
Would you like guidance on presenting these arguments or assistance with your appeal process?
Would you like guidance on presenting these arguments or assistance with your appeal process?
THE MERITS OF MY CASE/APPEAL ARE IMPORTANT IN UNDERSTANDING THE CONTEXT OF THE DELAY / AND/OR THE ET SENDING THE REASONS TO THE WRONG EMAIL OF MY LEGAL REP. IT WAS A TACTIC TO STOP/BLOCK MY APPEAL AND HIDE THE HUGE ERRORS MADE BY ET WITH THIS RESPONDENT AND RESPONDENT OF APPEAL * THAT WAS ALLOWED PERMISSION TO APPEAL AT C OF APPEAL. THE REFUSAL BY EAT TO ALLOW EXTENSION OF TIME AND USING A FALSE CLAIM AS ONE OF THE REASONS FOR REFUSAL IS ANOTHER PLOY TO STOP MY APPEAL, ABD FOR THE REGISTRAR TO SAY THE MERITS OF MY CASE/APPEAL ARE NOT RELEVANT IS ANOTHER WAY OF PROTECTING THE RESPONDENT WHO ID PERJURY.
Case Rating: *
It sounds like you have a complex issue with an Employment Tribunal (ET) and appeals process. Here are a few points you might find helpful:
- The merits of the case are typically considered separately from procedural decisions like extensions of time.
- Procedural decisions focus on delay length, reasons for the delay, and prejudice to the other party.
- Presenting your argument clearly about why the merits are crucial is important.
Would you like to connect with local lawyers who can better assist you with your case?
It sounds like you have a complex issue with an Employment Tribunal (ET) and appeals process. Here are a few points you might find helpful:
- The merits of the case are typically considered separately from procedural decisions like extensions of time.
- Procedural decisions focus on delay length, reasons for the delay, and prejudice to the other party.
- Presenting your argument clearly about why the merits are crucial is important.
Would you like to connect with local lawyers who can better assist you with your case?
NO, AS THESE LAWYERS DO NOT COVER THE UK. PLEASE CAN YOU ASSIST IN Presenting MY argument clearly about why the merits are crucial TO ADD IN NOW IN MY CHALLENGE TO THE REFUSAL OF EXTENSION OF TIME - WHICH IS, IN ITSELF, ANOTHER BIG ERROR BEING MADE BY THE EAT.
Case Rating: *
To present your argument clearly about why the merits of your case are crucial in the context of the delay, you should focus on the following points:
- Errors by ET: Explain how the Employment Tribunal sending reasons to the wrong email address contributed to the delay.
- Context of Delay: Highlight how the merits of your case provide context for the delay and thus should be considered.
- Prejudice to You: Show any prejudice or harm caused to you due to these errors, which merits consideration for an extension.
Would you like more detailed guidance on any of these points?
To present your argument clearly about why the merits of your case are crucial in the context of the delay, you should focus on the following points:
- Errors by ET: Explain how the Employment Tribunal sending reasons to the wrong email address contributed to the delay.
- Context of Delay: Highlight how the merits of your case provide context for the delay and thus should be considered.
- Prejudice to You: Show any prejudice or harm caused to you due to these errors, which merits consideration for an extension.
Would you like more detailed guidance on any of these points?
YES, PLEASE CAN YOU EXPAND/GUIDE FURTGER ON EACH POINT.
Case Rating: *
Sure, let's expand on each of these points:
- Errors by ET: Detail how the Employment Tribunal sent reasons to the wrong email address and how this administrative error directly contributed to the delay. Provide any evidence of this error, such as email records or correspondence with the ET.
- Context of Delay: Explain why the merits of your case are crucial to understanding the delay. For example, if the case involves significant legal or factual complexities, this might justify why a delay occurred. Highlight any key points from your case that demonstrate its importance and relevance.
- Prejudice to You: Describe how the errors have caused you prejudice or harm. This could include missed opportunities, financial losses, or other negative impacts. Clearly articulate how an extension of time would help mitigate these harms and ensure a fair process.
Would you like more detailed guidance on drafting these points, or any specific examples to include?
Sure, let's expand on each of these points:
- Errors by ET: Detail how the Employment Tribunal sent reasons to the wrong email address and how this administrative error directly contributed to the delay. Provide any evidence of this error, such as email records or correspondence with the ET.
- Context of Delay: Explain why the merits of your case are crucial to understanding the delay. For example, if the case involves significant legal or factual complexities, this might justify why a delay occurred. Highlight any key points from your case that demonstrate its importance and relevance.
- Prejudice to You: Describe how the errors have caused you prejudice or harm. This could include missed opportunities, financial losses, or other negative impacts. Clearly articulate how an extension of time would help mitigate these harms and ensure a fair process.
Would you like more detailed guidance on drafting these points, or any specific examples to include?
BOTH PLEASE.
Case Rating: *
Sure, here are more detailed guidelines to help you draft these points effectively:
- Errors by ET:
- Detail the mistake: Clearly describe the error made by the ET, such as sending important documents to the wrong email address.
- Provide evidence: Attach any email records, correspondence, or other proof showing that the ET used the incorrect email address.
- Connection to delay: Explain how this error directly caused a delay in your ability to respond or proceed with your appeal.
- Context of Delay:
- Merit relevance: Explain how the complexity or significance of your case justifies why the delay should be considered. For instance, if your case involves intricate legal issues, this might have required additional time to address properly.
- Case specifics: Highlight key points from your case that underline its importance. This could include any previous rulings in your favor or the overall impact of the case.
- Prejudice to You:
- Describe the harm: Clearly outline how the ET’s error has negatively impacted you. This could include financial losses, missed legal opportunities, emotional distress, etc.
- Mitigation with extension: Argue how granting the extension would help mitigate these harms and allow for a fair process. Demonstrate that the extension would enable you to fully present your case and rectify the issues caused by the ET’s error.
Would you like any specific examples to include in your draft?
Sure, here are more detailed guidelines to help you draft these points effectively:
- Errors by ET:
- Detail the mistake: Clearly describe the error made by the ET, such as sending important documents to the wrong email address.
- Provide evidence: Attach any email records, correspondence, or other proof showing that the ET used the incorrect email address.
- Connection to delay: Explain how this error directly caused a delay in your ability to respond or proceed with your appeal.
- Context of Delay:
- Merit relevance: Explain how the complexity or significance of your case justifies why the delay should be considered. For instance, if your case involves intricate legal issues, this might have required additional time to address properly.
- Case specifics: Highlight key points from your case that underline its importance. This could include any previous rulings in your favor or the overall impact of the case.
- Prejudice to You:
- Describe the harm: Clearly outline how the ET’s error has negatively impacted you. This could include financial losses, missed legal opportunities, emotional distress, etc.
- Mitigation with extension: Argue how granting the extension would help mitigate these harms and allow for a fair process. Demonstrate that the extension would enable you to fully present your case and rectify the issues caused by the ET’s error.
Would you like any specific examples to include in your draft?
CAN YOU GIVE EXAMPLESE FOR EACH OF THE * CATEGORIES?
Case Rating: *
Sure, here are some examples for each of the points:
- Errors by ET:
- *Detail the mistake*: The Employment Tribunal sent the decision reasons to the wrong email address, which belonged to another party.
- *Provide evidence*: Include email records showing the incorrect email address, as well as any correspondence with the ET acknowledging the error.
- *Connection to delay*: Due to this administrative error, I did not receive the decision reasons in time, which delayed my ability to file a timely appeal.
- Context of Delay:
- *Merit relevance*: My case involves complex legal issues, including significant allegations of procedural errors and misapplication of the law, which require thorough analysis and time to prepare.
- *Case specifics*: Previous rulings in my favor highlight the importance and complexity of the issues at hand. For instance, the permission to appeal granted in Appeal * underscores the merit of my arguments.
- Prejudice to You:
- *Describe the harm*: The ET’s error has caused significant prejudice, including financial losses due to prolonged litigation and emotional distress from the uncertainty and delay.
- *Mitigation with extension*: Granting an extension would allow me to fully address the procedural irregularities and present my case effectively, ensuring a fair and just process.
Would you like further guidance on drafting these points or any additional examples?
Sure, here are some examples for each of the points:
- Errors by ET:
- *Detail the mistake*: The Employment Tribunal sent the decision reasons to the wrong email address, which belonged to another party.
- *Provide evidence*: Include email records showing the incorrect email address, as well as any correspondence with the ET acknowledging the error.
- *Connection to delay*: Due to this administrative error, I did not receive the decision reasons in time, which delayed my ability to file a timely appeal.
- Context of Delay:
- *Merit relevance*: My case involves complex legal issues, including significant allegations of procedural errors and misapplication of the law, which require thorough analysis and time to prepare.
- *Case specifics*: Previous rulings in my favor highlight the importance and complexity of the issues at hand. For instance, the permission to appeal granted in Appeal * underscores the merit of my arguments.
- Prejudice to You:
- *Describe the harm*: The ET’s error has caused significant prejudice, including financial losses due to prolonged litigation and emotional distress from the uncertainty and delay.
- *Mitigation with extension*: Granting an extension would allow me to fully address the procedural irregularities and present my case effectively, ensuring a fair and just process.
Would you like further guidance on drafting these points or any additional examples?
CAN I PUT THIS TEXT IN RE. CONTEXT OF THE DELAY/ET SENDING THE REASONS TO WRONG EMAIL OF MY LEGAL REP? "Errors in Communication and Delays in Receiving Written Reasons
The Employment Tribunal sent the written reasons for its decision to the wrong email address. This caused significant delays in my ability to appeal.
The Tribunal had my correct email address on file, as shown in [insert evidence, e.g., previous correspondence or orders sent to the correct email]. The error in sending the written reasons to the wrong email address is particularly concerning because it appears deliberate, given that the Tribunal had no reason to use an incorrect address."
Case Rating: *
Yes, you can use the text you provided. Here's a slightly refined version:
---
Errors in Communication and Delays in Receiving Written Reasons
The Employment Tribunal sent the written reasons for its decision to the wrong email address, causing significant delays in my ability to appeal. The Tribunal had my correct email address on file, as shown in [insert evidence, e.g., previous correspondence or orders sent to the correct email]. This error is particularly concerning as it appears deliberate, given that the Tribunal had no reason to use an incorrect address.
---
Would you like more detailed guidance on any other aspect of your case?
Yes, you can use the text you provided. Here's a slightly refined version:
---
Errors in Communication and Delays in Receiving Written Reasons
The Employment Tribunal sent the written reasons for its decision to the wrong email address, causing significant delays in my ability to appeal. The Tribunal had my correct email address on file, as shown in [insert evidence, e.g., previous correspondence or orders sent to the correct email]. This error is particularly concerning as it appears deliberate, given that the Tribunal had no reason to use an incorrect address.
---
Would you like more detailed guidance on any other aspect of your case?
YES, PLEASE NOTE THAT ANOTHER ET ALSO SENT AN UNLESS ORDER TO THE SAME WRONG EMAIL IN JAN *, THEN THE WRITTEN REASONS TO THE SAME WRONG EMAIL IN AUG *. THIS ET /RESPONDENT ARE THE SOURCE OF WHERE THE WRONG EMAIL CAME FROM TO SEND THE REASONS FOR THIS MATTER IN JUNE *.
Case Rating: *
It looks like you might have a strong case due to the repeated administrative errors and their impact on your appeal process. Would you like to be connected to local lawyers who can better assist you with your case? If so, I will need to ask you a few mandatory questions to proceed.
To ensure I understand your situation correctly, how have these repeated errors affected your ability to appeal?
It looks like you might have a strong case due to the repeated administrative errors and their impact on your appeal process. Would you like to be connected to local lawyers who can better assist you with your case? If so, I will need to ask you a few mandatory questions to proceed.
To ensure I understand your situation correctly, how have these repeated errors affected your ability to appeal?
THESE ERRORS IMPACTED/AFFECTED * APPEALS AND THIS IS CONTINUING WITH ERRORS REPEATED AT EAT AS WELL. THEY ARE NOT LETTING ME DO MY APPEALS. THIS ALL POINTS TO THE THREAT I RECEIVED IN JAN *.
Case Rating: *
It seems like your case involves significant administrative errors and potentially deliberate actions that have impacted your ability to appeal.
Would you like to be connected to local lawyers who can better assist you with your case? If so, I will need to ask you a few mandatory questions to proceed.
It seems like your case involves significant administrative errors and potentially deliberate actions that have impacted your ability to appeal.
Would you like to be connected to local lawyers who can better assist you with your case? If so, I will need to ask you a few mandatory questions to proceed.
NO, AS I AM IN UK.
Case Rating: *
To further assist you in presenting your argument, here’s how you can expand on the additional information you provided:
To further assist you in presenting your argument, here’s how you can expand on the additional information you provided:
Errors in Communication and Delays in Receiving Written Reasons:
- Repeated Errors: Detail the repeated instances where the Employment Tribunal sent orders and written reasons to the wrong email address. Mention the specific examples in January * and August *.
- Source of the Error: Explain how the wrong email address originated from the ET/Respondent, affecting multiple appeals, including the June * matter.
- Impact on Appeals: Describe how these repeated errors have prevented you from effectively pursuing your appeals, leading to significant delays and prejudice.
- Repeated Errors: Detail the repeated instances where the Employment Tribunal sent orders and written reasons to the wrong email address. Mention the specific examples in January * and August *.
- Source of the Error: Explain how the wrong email address originated from the ET/Respondent, affecting multiple appeals, including the June * matter.
- Impact on Appeals: Describe how these repeated errors have prevented you from effectively pursuing your appeals, leading to significant delays and prejudice.
Example Text:
---
Errors in Communication and Delays in Receiving Written Reasons:
- The Employment Tribunal sent the written reasons for its decision to the wrong email address, causing significant delays in my ability to appeal.
- The Tribunal had my correct email address on file, as shown in [insert evidence, e.g., previous correspondence or orders sent to the correct email].
- This error occurred multiple times: an "Unless Order" was sent to the wrong email in January *, and written reasons were again sent to the wrong email in August *.
- These errors appear deliberate, as the Tribunal had no reason to use an incorrect address and the wrong email originated from the ET/Respondent, affecting my appeals in June * and others.
- As a result, these repeated administrative errors have severely impacted three appeals and continue to impede my ability to seek justice.
---
Would you like further assistance with any other aspects of your case?
---
Errors in Communication and Delays in Receiving Written Reasons:
- The Employment Tribunal sent the written reasons for its decision to the wrong email address, causing significant delays in my ability to appeal.
- The Tribunal had my correct email address on file, as shown in [insert evidence, e.g., previous correspondence or orders sent to the correct email].
- This error occurred multiple times: an "Unless Order" was sent to the wrong email in January *, and written reasons were again sent to the wrong email in August *.
- These errors appear deliberate, as the Tribunal had no reason to use an incorrect address and the wrong email originated from the ET/Respondent, affecting my appeals in June * and others.
- As a result, these repeated administrative errors have severely impacted three appeals and continue to impede my ability to seek justice.
---
Would you like further assistance with any other aspects of your case?
IT WAS * DIFFERENT ETs THAT USED THE WRONG EMAIL OF MY LEGAL REP ONLY TO SEND THE UNLESS ORDER AND WRITTEN REASONS IN ONE ET AND ONLY THE WRITTEN REASONS FROM THE OTHER ET.
Case Rating: *
Got it, it seems like you’re dealing with a detailed and complex issue with multiple errors from different Employment Tribunals. Here’s how you can further structure your argument:
Got it, it seems like you’re dealing with a detailed and complex issue with multiple errors from different Employment Tribunals. Here’s how you can further structure your argument:
Errors in Communication and Delays in Receiving Written Reasons:
- Repeated Errors:
- Detail the specific instances: One ET sent an "Unless Order" and written reasons to the wrong email in January * and August *.
- Another ET sent written reasons to the same incorrect email address in June *.
- Source of the Error:
- Explain that the incorrect email address originated from the ET/Respondent, impacting multiple appeals.
- Impact on Appeals:
- Describe how these repeated errors have prevented you from effectively pursuing your appeals, leading to significant delays and prejudice.
- Highlight any specific consequences, such as missed deadlines or additional costs incurred due to these errors.
- Repeated Errors:
- Detail the specific instances: One ET sent an "Unless Order" and written reasons to the wrong email in January * and August *.
- Another ET sent written reasons to the same incorrect email address in June *.
- Source of the Error:
- Explain that the incorrect email address originated from the ET/Respondent, impacting multiple appeals.
- Impact on Appeals:
- Describe how these repeated errors have prevented you from effectively pursuing your appeals, leading to significant delays and prejudice.
- Highlight any specific consequences, such as missed deadlines or additional costs incurred due to these errors.
Example Text:
---
Errors in Communication and Delays in Receiving Written Reasons:
- The Employment Tribunal sent the written reasons for its decision to the wrong email address, causing significant delays in my ability to appeal.
- The Tribunal had my correct email address on file, as shown in [insert evidence, e.g., previous correspondence or orders sent to the correct email].
- This error occurred multiple times: one ET sent an "Unless Order" to the wrong email in January * and written reasons in August *. Another ET sent written reasons to the incorrect email in June *.
- These errors appear deliberate, as the Tribunal had no reason to use an incorrect address, and the wrong email originated from the ET/Respondent, affecting multiple appeals, including the June * matter.
- As a result, these repeated administrative errors have severely impacted three appeals and continue to impede my ability to seek justice.
---
Would you like further assistance with any other aspects of your case?
---
Errors in Communication and Delays in Receiving Written Reasons:
- The Employment Tribunal sent the written reasons for its decision to the wrong email address, causing significant delays in my ability to appeal.
- The Tribunal had my correct email address on file, as shown in [insert evidence, e.g., previous correspondence or orders sent to the correct email].
- This error occurred multiple times: one ET sent an "Unless Order" to the wrong email in January * and written reasons in August *. Another ET sent written reasons to the incorrect email in June *.
- These errors appear deliberate, as the Tribunal had no reason to use an incorrect address, and the wrong email originated from the ET/Respondent, affecting multiple appeals, including the June * matter.
- As a result, these repeated administrative errors have severely impacted three appeals and continue to impede my ability to seek justice.
---
Would you like further assistance with any other aspects of your case?
CAN I ADD THIS IN MY CHALLENGE TO THEREFUSAL OF EXTENSION OF TIME? "The ET erred in conflating its orders regarding the admissibility of evidence with orders regarding disclosure. In relation to the recording and transcript, ET’s Case Management Order of January * stated at "
Case Rating: *
Yes, you can add that to your challenge for the refusal of the extension of time. Here’s how you might structure it:
---
Errors in Communication and Delays in Receiving Written Reasons:
- The Employment Tribunal sent the written reasons for its decision to the wrong email address, causing significant delays in my ability to appeal.
- The Tribunal had my correct email address on file, as shown in [insert evidence, e.g., previous correspondence or orders sent to the correct email].
- This error occurred multiple times: one ET sent an "Unless Order" to the wrong email in January * and written reasons in August *. Another ET sent written reasons to the incorrect email in June *.
- These errors appear deliberate, as the Tribunal had no reason to use an incorrect address, and the wrong email originated from the ET/Respondent, affecting multiple appeals, including the June * matter.
- As a result, these repeated administrative errors have severely impacted three appeals and continue to impede my ability to seek justice.
Procedural Errors:
- The ET erred in conflating its orders regarding the admissibility of evidence with orders regarding disclosure.
- In relation to the recording and transcript, ET’s Case Management Order of January * stated at [insert specific details or quotes from the order].
---
Would you like more detailed guidance on any other aspect of your case?
Yes, you can add that to your challenge for the refusal of the extension of time. Here’s how you might structure it:
---
Errors in Communication and Delays in Receiving Written Reasons:
- The Employment Tribunal sent the written reasons for its decision to the wrong email address, causing significant delays in my ability to appeal.
- The Tribunal had my correct email address on file, as shown in [insert evidence, e.g., previous correspondence or orders sent to the correct email].
- This error occurred multiple times: one ET sent an "Unless Order" to the wrong email in January * and written reasons in August *. Another ET sent written reasons to the incorrect email in June *.
- These errors appear deliberate, as the Tribunal had no reason to use an incorrect address, and the wrong email originated from the ET/Respondent, affecting multiple appeals, including the June * matter.
- As a result, these repeated administrative errors have severely impacted three appeals and continue to impede my ability to seek justice.
Procedural Errors:
- The ET erred in conflating its orders regarding the admissibility of evidence with orders regarding disclosure.
- In relation to the recording and transcript, ET’s Case Management Order of January * stated at [insert specific details or quotes from the order].
---
Would you like more detailed guidance on any other aspect of your case?
HOW IS THIS RELEVANT TO THE EXTENSION OF TIME REQUEST?
Case Rating: *
The relevance of procedural errors and delays to your extension of time request lies in demonstrating how these issues have directly impacted your ability to comply with deadlines. Here’s how you can connect these points:
*. Errors in Communication:
- Detail how the repeated errors in sending documents to the wrong email address caused significant delays in your ability to receive important information and respond promptly.
*. Procedural Errors:
- Explain how the ET's conflation of orders regarding admissibility and disclosure led to further confusion and delays in your case management.
*. Impact on Appeals:
- Highlight how these administrative mistakes and procedural errors have cumulatively affected your ability to pursue your appeals in a timely manner.
Would you like more specific examples or further assistance in drafting this argument?
The relevance of procedural errors and delays to your extension of time request lies in demonstrating how these issues have directly impacted your ability to comply with deadlines. Here’s how you can connect these points:
*. Errors in Communication:
- Detail how the repeated errors in sending documents to the wrong email address caused significant delays in your ability to receive important information and respond promptly.
*. Procedural Errors:
- Explain how the ET's conflation of orders regarding admissibility and disclosure led to further confusion and delays in your case management.
*. Impact on Appeals:
- Highlight how these administrative mistakes and procedural errors have cumulatively affected your ability to pursue your appeals in a timely manner.
Would you like more specific examples or further assistance in drafting this argument?
The ISSUE OF ET's conflation of orders regarding admissibility and disclosure led to further confusion and delays in case management IS ONE OF MY GROUNDS OF APPEAL IE MY APPEAL. SO THE MERITS OF MY APPEAL ARE VERY RELEVANT TO THE EXTENSION OF TIME REQUEST - THEN THE REGISTRAR SHOULD NOT HAVE RULED OTHERWISE - IS THIS ANOTHER LONG LIST OF TACTICS TO STOP MY CASE?
Case Rating: *
To address your concern about how the merits of your appeal are relevant to the extension of time request, consider the following points:
*. Errors in Communication:
- Highlight the repeated administrative errors, such as sending documents to the wrong email address, which caused significant delays in receiving crucial information.
*. Procedural Errors:
- Emphasize how the Employment Tribunal's conflation of orders regarding admissibility and disclosure led to further confusion and delays in case management.
*. Relevance to Extension of Time:
- Argue that these errors are not just procedural but directly impact the merits of your case. The confusion and delays caused by these errors are critical to understanding why an extension of time is necessary.
*. Prejudice to You:
- Detail the harm these errors have caused, including missed deadlines and the inability to present your case effectively, which justifies the need for an extension.
Would you like further assistance with any specific aspects of these points?
To address your concern about how the merits of your appeal are relevant to the extension of time request, consider the following points:
*. Errors in Communication:
- Highlight the repeated administrative errors, such as sending documents to the wrong email address, which caused significant delays in receiving crucial information.
*. Procedural Errors:
- Emphasize how the Employment Tribunal's conflation of orders regarding admissibility and disclosure led to further confusion and delays in case management.
*. Relevance to Extension of Time:
- Argue that these errors are not just procedural but directly impact the merits of your case. The confusion and delays caused by these errors are critical to understanding why an extension of time is necessary.
*. Prejudice to You:
- Detail the harm these errors have caused, including missed deadlines and the inability to present your case effectively, which justifies the need for an extension.
Would you like further assistance with any specific aspects of these points?
The ET's conflation of orders regarding admissibility and disclosure led to further confusion and delays in My case - THE et struck of my claim, which is what my appeal is for.
Case Rating: *
To further strengthen your argument for an extension of time, make sure to focus on how the procedural errors and administrative mistakes directly impacted your ability to appeal. Here’s a refined structure for your argument:
---
Errors in Communication and Delays in Receiving Written Reasons:
- The Employment Tribunal sent the written reasons for its decision to the wrong email address, causing significant delays in my ability to appeal.
- The Tribunal had my correct email address on file, as shown in [insert evidence, e.g., previous correspondence or orders sent to the correct email].
- This error occurred multiple times: one ET sent an "Unless Order" to the wrong email in January * and written reasons in August *. Another ET sent written reasons to the incorrect email in June *.
- These errors appear deliberate, as the Tribunal had no reason to use an incorrect address, and the wrong email originated from the ET/Respondent, affecting multiple appeals, including the June * matter.
- As a result, these repeated administrative errors have severely impacted three appeals and continue to impede my ability to seek justice.
Procedural Errors:
- The ET erred in conflating its orders regarding the admissibility of evidence with orders regarding disclosure.
- In relation to the recording and transcript, ET’s Case Management Order of January * stated at [insert specific details or quotes from the order].
Relevance to Extension of Time:
- These errors are not just procedural but directly impact the merits of my case.
- The confusion and delays caused by these errors are critical to understanding why an extension of time is necessary.
Prejudice to You:
- The ET’s errors have caused significant prejudice, including missed deadlines and the inability to present my case effectively.
- Granting an extension would help mitigate these harms and allow for a fair process.
---
Would you like any more detailed guidance on drafting these points or any additional assistance?
To further strengthen your argument for an extension of time, make sure to focus on how the procedural errors and administrative mistakes directly impacted your ability to appeal. Here’s a refined structure for your argument:
---
Errors in Communication and Delays in Receiving Written Reasons:
- The Employment Tribunal sent the written reasons for its decision to the wrong email address, causing significant delays in my ability to appeal.
- The Tribunal had my correct email address on file, as shown in [insert evidence, e.g., previous correspondence or orders sent to the correct email].
- This error occurred multiple times: one ET sent an "Unless Order" to the wrong email in January * and written reasons in August *. Another ET sent written reasons to the incorrect email in June *.
- These errors appear deliberate, as the Tribunal had no reason to use an incorrect address, and the wrong email originated from the ET/Respondent, affecting multiple appeals, including the June * matter.
- As a result, these repeated administrative errors have severely impacted three appeals and continue to impede my ability to seek justice.
Procedural Errors:
- The ET erred in conflating its orders regarding the admissibility of evidence with orders regarding disclosure.
- In relation to the recording and transcript, ET’s Case Management Order of January * stated at [insert specific details or quotes from the order].
Relevance to Extension of Time:
- These errors are not just procedural but directly impact the merits of my case.
- The confusion and delays caused by these errors are critical to understanding why an extension of time is necessary.
Prejudice to You:
- The ET’s errors have caused significant prejudice, including missed deadlines and the inability to present my case effectively.
- Granting an extension would help mitigate these harms and allow for a fair process.
---
Would you like any more detailed guidance on drafting these points or any additional assistance?
how do these errors impact the merits of my case?
Case Rating: *
The errors you've mentioned impact the merits of your case in several significant ways:
- Validity of the Tribunal's Decisions: Errors like sending documents to the wrong email address call into question the administrative competence and fairness of the Tribunal's decisions.
- Ability to Respond: Delays caused by these errors hinder your ability to respond promptly and effectively, potentially weakening your case.
- Case Management: Procedural mistakes, such as conflating orders, create confusion and mismanagement, affecting the overall integrity of the case proceedings.
Would you like more specific examples or further assistance in drafting these arguments?
The errors you've mentioned impact the merits of your case in several significant ways:
- Validity of the Tribunal's Decisions: Errors like sending documents to the wrong email address call into question the administrative competence and fairness of the Tribunal's decisions.
- Ability to Respond: Delays caused by these errors hinder your ability to respond promptly and effectively, potentially weakening your case.
- Case Management: Procedural mistakes, such as conflating orders, create confusion and mismanagement, affecting the overall integrity of the case proceedings.
Would you like more specific examples or further assistance in drafting these arguments?
ET failed to take into account a relevant consideration in the exercise of its discretion. The Respondent knew what the Claimant said the transcript stated from * Dec *. The Resp knew of the recording from * Jan * & were provided with the recordings in Feb and Mar * but chose not to make an application to strike out until the Final Hearing. Only communication the Respondent provided to the Claimant was an email saying they would amend their Response, and a day before the Final Hearing the Respondent stated in an email that matters have developed and submissions will be made at the hearing. The Claimant asked that the Respondent provide the written submissions to be relied upon, but this was ignored. but AT the hearing the Respondent took other action to, in effect, ambush ME at the hearing, providing no written submissions. The Respondent’s unreasonable conduct was relevant in the exercise of discretion.
Case Rating: *
To further elaborate on your points:
To further elaborate on your points:
Errors in Communication and Delays in Receiving Written Reasons:
- Repeated Errors: Detail the specific instances where the ET sent orders and written reasons to the wrong email address. Mention the specific examples in January *, August *, and June *.
- Source of the Error: Explain that the incorrect email address originated from the ET/Respondent, impacting multiple appeals.
- Impact on Appeals: Describe how these repeated errors have prevented you from effectively pursuing your appeals, leading to significant delays and prejudice.
- Repeated Errors: Detail the specific instances where the ET sent orders and written reasons to the wrong email address. Mention the specific examples in January *, August *, and June *.
- Source of the Error: Explain that the incorrect email address originated from the ET/Respondent, impacting multiple appeals.
- Impact on Appeals: Describe how these repeated errors have prevented you from effectively pursuing your appeals, leading to significant delays and prejudice.
Procedural Errors:
- The ET erred in conflating its orders regarding the admissibility of evidence with orders regarding disclosure.
- In relation to the recording and transcript, ET’s Case Management Order of January * stated at [insert specific details or quotes from the order].
- The ET erred in conflating its orders regarding the admissibility of evidence with orders regarding disclosure.
- In relation to the recording and transcript, ET’s Case Management Order of January * stated at [insert specific details or quotes from the order].
Relevance to Extension of Time:
- These errors are not just procedural but directly impact the merits of my case.
- The confusion and delays caused by these errors are critical to understanding why an extension of time is necessary.
- These errors are not just procedural but directly impact the merits of my case.
- The confusion and delays caused by these errors are critical to understanding why an extension of time is necessary.
Prejudice to You:
- The ET’s errors have caused significant prejudice, including missed deadlines and the inability to present my case effectively.
- Granting an extension would help mitigate these harms and allow for a fair process.
Would you like more detailed guidance on drafting these points or any additional assistance?
- The ET’s errors have caused significant prejudice, including missed deadlines and the inability to present my case effectively.
- Granting an extension would help mitigate these harms and allow for a fair process.
Would you like more detailed guidance on drafting these points or any additional assistance?
IS THE CONTENTOFMY LASTMESSAGE IMPORTANT TO PUT INTO CHALLENGE OF REFUSAL OF EXTENSION OF TIME?
Case Rating: *
Yes, the content of your last message is crucial in challenging the refusal of the extension of time. It demonstrates how the ET failed to consider relevant factors and the respondent's unreasonable conduct, which is essential in exercising discretion.
Would you like to include any additional details or need help structuring the argument further?
Yes, the content of your last message is crucial in challenging the refusal of the extension of time. It demonstrates how the ET failed to consider relevant factors and the respondent's unreasonable conduct, which is essential in exercising discretion.
Would you like to include any additional details or need help structuring the argument further?
PLEASE CAN YOU DO A DRAFT OF MY LAST MESSAGE TO CHALLENGE THE REFUSAL.
Case Rating: *
Sure, here's a draft that incorporates the key points from your last message to challenge the refusal of the extension of time:
---
Errors in Communication and Delays in Receiving Written Reasons:
- The Employment Tribunal sent the written reasons for its decision to the wrong email address, causing significant delays in my ability to appeal.
- The Tribunal had my correct email address on file, as shown in [insert evidence, e.g., previous correspondence or orders sent to the correct email].
- This error occurred multiple times: one ET sent an "Unless Order" to the wrong email in January * and written reasons in August *. Another ET sent written reasons to the incorrect email in June *.
- These errors appear deliberate, as the Tribunal had no reason to use an incorrect address, and the wrong email originated from the ET/Respondent, affecting multiple appeals, including the June * matter.
- As a result, these repeated administrative errors have severely impacted three appeals and continue to impede my ability to seek justice.
Procedural Errors:
- The ET erred in conflating its orders regarding the admissibility of evidence with orders regarding disclosure.
- In relation to the recording and transcript, ET’s Case Management Order of January * stated at [insert specific details or quotes from the order].
Relevance to Extension of Time:
- These errors are not just procedural but directly impact the merits of my case.
- The confusion and delays caused by these errors are critical to understanding why an extension of time is necessary.
Prejudice to You:
- The ET’s errors have caused significant prejudice, including missed deadlines and the inability to present my case effectively.
- Granting an extension would help mitigate these harms and allow for a fair process.
Additional Points:
- The ET failed to take into account relevant considerations in the exercise of its discretion. The Respondent knew what the Claimant said the transcript stated from * December *.
- The Respondent knew of the recording from * January * and were provided with the recordings in February and March * but chose not to make an application to strike out until the Final Hearing.
- The only communication the Respondent provided to the Claimant was an email saying they would amend their Response, and a day before the Final Hearing the Respondent stated in an email that matters have developed and submissions will be made at the hearing.
- The Claimant asked that the Respondent provide the written submissions to be relied upon, but this was ignored. At the hearing, the Respondent took other action to, in effect, ambush the Claimant, providing no written submissions.
- The Respondent’s unreasonable conduct was relevant in the exercise of discretion.
---
Would you like any more detailed guidance on drafting these points or any additional assistance?
Sure, here's a draft that incorporates the key points from your last message to challenge the refusal of the extension of time:
---
Errors in Communication and Delays in Receiving Written Reasons:
- The Employment Tribunal sent the written reasons for its decision to the wrong email address, causing significant delays in my ability to appeal.
- The Tribunal had my correct email address on file, as shown in [insert evidence, e.g., previous correspondence or orders sent to the correct email].
- This error occurred multiple times: one ET sent an "Unless Order" to the wrong email in January * and written reasons in August *. Another ET sent written reasons to the incorrect email in June *.
- These errors appear deliberate, as the Tribunal had no reason to use an incorrect address, and the wrong email originated from the ET/Respondent, affecting multiple appeals, including the June * matter.
- As a result, these repeated administrative errors have severely impacted three appeals and continue to impede my ability to seek justice.
Procedural Errors:
- The ET erred in conflating its orders regarding the admissibility of evidence with orders regarding disclosure.
- In relation to the recording and transcript, ET’s Case Management Order of January * stated at [insert specific details or quotes from the order].
Relevance to Extension of Time:
- These errors are not just procedural but directly impact the merits of my case.
- The confusion and delays caused by these errors are critical to understanding why an extension of time is necessary.
Prejudice to You:
- The ET’s errors have caused significant prejudice, including missed deadlines and the inability to present my case effectively.
- Granting an extension would help mitigate these harms and allow for a fair process.
Additional Points:
- The ET failed to take into account relevant considerations in the exercise of its discretion. The Respondent knew what the Claimant said the transcript stated from * December *.
- The Respondent knew of the recording from * January * and were provided with the recordings in February and March * but chose not to make an application to strike out until the Final Hearing.
- The only communication the Respondent provided to the Claimant was an email saying they would amend their Response, and a day before the Final Hearing the Respondent stated in an email that matters have developed and submissions will be made at the hearing.
- The Claimant asked that the Respondent provide the written submissions to be relied upon, but this was ignored. At the hearing, the Respondent took other action to, in effect, ambush the Claimant, providing no written submissions.
- The Respondent’s unreasonable conduct was relevant in the exercise of discretion.
---
Would you like any more detailed guidance on drafting these points or any additional assistance?
AS MY LEGAL REP AT THAT TIME STOPPED TRADING IN NOV *, JUST BEFORE I GOT THE WRITEN REASONS, SHE HAD ALL CORRESPONDENCE BUT I WAS UNABLE TO GET THEM BUT I DO HAVE HER WRITTEN SUBMISSINS SHE WAS FORCED TO PREPARE ON THE 2ND DAY OF THE FINAL HEARING WHICH WAS WASTED BY THE RESPONDENT. THIS IS ANOTHER IMPORTANT ISSUE RESULTING FROM THE ETs error of sending the judgment to wrong email. pleae can you provide detaild guidannce om drafting this point and the one above.
Case Rating: *
Here's how you can integrate the additional information about your legal representative into your argument:
---
Errors in Communication and Delays in Receiving Written Reasons:
- The Employment Tribunal sent the written reasons for its decision to the wrong email address, causing significant delays in my ability to appeal.
- The Tribunal had my correct email address on file, as shown in [insert evidence, e.g., previous correspondence or orders sent to the correct email].
- This error occurred multiple times: one ET sent an "Unless Order" to the wrong email in January * and written reasons in August *. Another ET sent written reasons to the incorrect email in June *.
- These errors appear deliberate, as the Tribunal had no reason to use an incorrect address, and the wrong email originated from the ET/Respondent, affecting multiple appeals, including the June * matter.
- As a result, these repeated administrative errors have severely impacted three appeals and continue to impede my ability to seek justice.
Procedural Errors:
- The ET erred in conflating its orders regarding the admissibility of evidence with orders regarding disclosure.
- In relation to the recording and transcript, ET’s Case Management Order of January * stated at [insert specific details or quotes from the order].
Relevance to Extension of Time:
- These errors are not just procedural but directly impact the merits of my case.
- The confusion and delays caused by these errors are critical to understanding why an extension of time is necessary.
Prejudice to You:
- The ET’s errors have caused significant prejudice, including missed deadlines and the inability to present my case effectively.
- Granting an extension would help mitigate these harms and allow for a fair process.
Additional Points:
- The ET failed to take into account relevant considerations in the exercise of its discretion. The Respondent knew what the Claimant said the transcript stated from * December *.
- The Respondent knew of the recording from * January * and were provided with the recordings in February and March * but chose not to make an application to strike out until the Final Hearing.
- The only communication the Respondent provided to the Claimant was an email saying they would amend their Response, and a day before the Final Hearing, the Respondent stated in an email that matters have developed and submissions will be made at the hearing.
- The Claimant asked that the Respondent provide the written submissions to be relied upon, but this was ignored. At the hearing, the Respondent took other action to, in effect, ambush the Claimant, providing no written submissions.
- The Respondent’s unreasonable conduct was relevant in the exercise of discretion.
- My legal representative stopped trading in November *, just before I received the written reasons. She had all the correspondence, which I was unable to retrieve. However, I do have her written submissions prepared on the second day of the final hearing, which were wasted by the Respondent's actions.
- This is another important issue resulting from the ET's error of sending the judgment to the wrong email.
---
Would you like any more detailed guidance on drafting these points or any additional assistance?
Here's how you can integrate the additional information about your legal representative into your argument:
---
Errors in Communication and Delays in Receiving Written Reasons:
- The Employment Tribunal sent the written reasons for its decision to the wrong email address, causing significant delays in my ability to appeal.
- The Tribunal had my correct email address on file, as shown in [insert evidence, e.g., previous correspondence or orders sent to the correct email].
- This error occurred multiple times: one ET sent an "Unless Order" to the wrong email in January * and written reasons in August *. Another ET sent written reasons to the incorrect email in June *.
- These errors appear deliberate, as the Tribunal had no reason to use an incorrect address, and the wrong email originated from the ET/Respondent, affecting multiple appeals, including the June * matter.
- As a result, these repeated administrative errors have severely impacted three appeals and continue to impede my ability to seek justice.
Procedural Errors:
- The ET erred in conflating its orders regarding the admissibility of evidence with orders regarding disclosure.
- In relation to the recording and transcript, ET’s Case Management Order of January * stated at [insert specific details or quotes from the order].
Relevance to Extension of Time:
- These errors are not just procedural but directly impact the merits of my case.
- The confusion and delays caused by these errors are critical to understanding why an extension of time is necessary.
Prejudice to You:
- The ET’s errors have caused significant prejudice, including missed deadlines and the inability to present my case effectively.
- Granting an extension would help mitigate these harms and allow for a fair process.
Additional Points:
- The ET failed to take into account relevant considerations in the exercise of its discretion. The Respondent knew what the Claimant said the transcript stated from * December *.
- The Respondent knew of the recording from * January * and were provided with the recordings in February and March * but chose not to make an application to strike out until the Final Hearing.
- The only communication the Respondent provided to the Claimant was an email saying they would amend their Response, and a day before the Final Hearing, the Respondent stated in an email that matters have developed and submissions will be made at the hearing.
- The Claimant asked that the Respondent provide the written submissions to be relied upon, but this was ignored. At the hearing, the Respondent took other action to, in effect, ambush the Claimant, providing no written submissions.
- The Respondent’s unreasonable conduct was relevant in the exercise of discretion.
- My legal representative stopped trading in November *, just before I received the written reasons. She had all the correspondence, which I was unable to retrieve. However, I do have her written submissions prepared on the second day of the final hearing, which were wasted by the Respondent's actions.
- This is another important issue resulting from the ET's error of sending the judgment to the wrong email.
---
Would you like any more detailed guidance on drafting these points or any additional assistance?
"The ET erred in the way it treated the impugned evidence of the Respt’s witnesses. The ET says:
'In relation to matters in the case where there was no documentary record of any kind, we would now be in difficulty putting out of our minds Ms B’s continuing failure to remember these matters being discussed in the * Aug * meeting.' If ET thought that the witness was mistaken, an experienced tribunal could put this out of their mind. If the ET thought that the witness was deliberately misleading ET, it should have taken that into account. It would be highly unusual for an ET to strike out a claimant’s claim because it considered that the respt’s witnesses were deliberately misleading ET on an important matter, evidenced by the claimant’s unreasonable conduct. The ET erred in concluding that it could not put the matter out of its mind or, erred in failing to take into account the fact that the Respt’s witnesses were potentially lying to ET. This was the most important consideration.
Case Rating: *
Here's how you can incorporate the recent points into your challenge for the refusal of the extension of time:
---
Errors in Communication and Delays in Receiving Written Reasons:
- The Employment Tribunal sent the written reasons for its decision to the wrong email address, causing significant delays in my ability to appeal.
- The Tribunal had my correct email address on file, as shown in [insert evidence, e.g., previous correspondence or orders sent to the correct email].
- This error occurred multiple times: one ET sent an "Unless Order" to the wrong email in January * and written reasons in August *. Another ET sent written reasons to the incorrect email in June *.
- These errors appear deliberate, as the Tribunal had no reason to use an incorrect address, and the wrong email originated from the ET/Respondent, affecting multiple appeals, including the June * matter.
- As a result, these repeated administrative errors have severely impacted three appeals and continue to impede my ability to seek justice.
Procedural Errors:
- The ET erred in conflating its orders regarding the admissibility of evidence with orders regarding disclosure.
- In relation to the recording and transcript, ET’s Case Management Order of January * stated at [insert specific details or quotes from the order].
Relevance to Extension of Time:
- These errors are not just procedural but directly impact the merits of my case.
- The confusion and delays caused by these errors are critical to understanding why an extension of time is necessary.
Prejudice to You:
- The ET’s errors have caused significant prejudice, including missed deadlines and the inability to present my case effectively.
- Granting an extension would help mitigate these harms and allow for a fair process.
Additional Points:
- The ET failed to take into account relevant considerations in the exercise of its discretion. The Respondent knew what the Claimant said the transcript stated from * December *.
- The Respondent knew of the recording from * January * and were provided with the recordings in February and March * but chose not to make an application to strike out until the Final Hearing.
- The only communication the Respondent provided to the Claimant was an email saying they would amend their Response, and a day before the Final Hearing, the Respondent stated in an email that matters have developed and submissions will be made at the hearing.
- The Claimant asked that the Respondent provide the written submissions to be relied upon, but this was ignored. At the hearing, the Respondent took other action to, in effect, ambush the Claimant, providing no written submissions.
- The Respondent’s unreasonable conduct was relevant in the exercise of discretion.
- My legal representative stopped trading in November *, just before I received the written reasons. She had all the correspondence, which I was unable to retrieve. However, I do have her written submissions prepared on the second day of the final hearing, which were wasted by the Respondent's actions.
- This is another important issue resulting from the ET's error of sending the judgment to the wrong email.
Impugned Evidence of the Respondent's Witnesses:
- The ET erred in the way it treated the impugned evidence of the Respondent’s witnesses.
- The ET mentioned, "In relation to matters in the case where there was no documentary record of any kind, we would now be in difficulty putting out of our minds Ms B’s continuing failure to remember these matters being discussed in the * Aug * meeting."
- If ET thought that the witness was mistaken, an experienced tribunal could disregard this. If the ET thought the witness was deliberately misleading, it should have taken that into account.
- It is unusual for an ET to strike out a claimant’s claim because it considered that the respondent’s witnesses were deliberately misleading on an important matter, evidenced by the claimant’s unreasonable conduct.
- The ET erred in concluding that it could not disregard the matter or failed to consider the possibility that the Respondent’s witnesses were potentially lying to the ET.
---
Would you like any more detailed guidance on drafting these points or any additional assistance?
Here's how you can incorporate the recent points into your challenge for the refusal of the extension of time:
---
Errors in Communication and Delays in Receiving Written Reasons:
- The Employment Tribunal sent the written reasons for its decision to the wrong email address, causing significant delays in my ability to appeal.
- The Tribunal had my correct email address on file, as shown in [insert evidence, e.g., previous correspondence or orders sent to the correct email].
- This error occurred multiple times: one ET sent an "Unless Order" to the wrong email in January * and written reasons in August *. Another ET sent written reasons to the incorrect email in June *.
- These errors appear deliberate, as the Tribunal had no reason to use an incorrect address, and the wrong email originated from the ET/Respondent, affecting multiple appeals, including the June * matter.
- As a result, these repeated administrative errors have severely impacted three appeals and continue to impede my ability to seek justice.
Procedural Errors:
- The ET erred in conflating its orders regarding the admissibility of evidence with orders regarding disclosure.
- In relation to the recording and transcript, ET’s Case Management Order of January * stated at [insert specific details or quotes from the order].
Relevance to Extension of Time:
- These errors are not just procedural but directly impact the merits of my case.
- The confusion and delays caused by these errors are critical to understanding why an extension of time is necessary.
Prejudice to You:
- The ET’s errors have caused significant prejudice, including missed deadlines and the inability to present my case effectively.
- Granting an extension would help mitigate these harms and allow for a fair process.
Additional Points:
- The ET failed to take into account relevant considerations in the exercise of its discretion. The Respondent knew what the Claimant said the transcript stated from * December *.
- The Respondent knew of the recording from * January * and were provided with the recordings in February and March * but chose not to make an application to strike out until the Final Hearing.
- The only communication the Respondent provided to the Claimant was an email saying they would amend their Response, and a day before the Final Hearing, the Respondent stated in an email that matters have developed and submissions will be made at the hearing.
- The Claimant asked that the Respondent provide the written submissions to be relied upon, but this was ignored. At the hearing, the Respondent took other action to, in effect, ambush the Claimant, providing no written submissions.
- The Respondent’s unreasonable conduct was relevant in the exercise of discretion.
- My legal representative stopped trading in November *, just before I received the written reasons. She had all the correspondence, which I was unable to retrieve. However, I do have her written submissions prepared on the second day of the final hearing, which were wasted by the Respondent's actions.
- This is another important issue resulting from the ET's error of sending the judgment to the wrong email.
Impugned Evidence of the Respondent's Witnesses:
- The ET erred in the way it treated the impugned evidence of the Respondent’s witnesses.
- The ET mentioned, "In relation to matters in the case where there was no documentary record of any kind, we would now be in difficulty putting out of our minds Ms B’s continuing failure to remember these matters being discussed in the * Aug * meeting."
- If ET thought that the witness was mistaken, an experienced tribunal could disregard this. If the ET thought the witness was deliberately misleading, it should have taken that into account.
- It is unusual for an ET to strike out a claimant’s claim because it considered that the respondent’s witnesses were deliberately misleading on an important matter, evidenced by the claimant’s unreasonable conduct.
- The ET erred in concluding that it could not disregard the matter or failed to consider the possibility that the Respondent’s witnesses were potentially lying to the ET.
---
Would you like any more detailed guidance on drafting these points or any additional assistance?
regarding the Impugned Evidence of the Respondent's Witnesses - IS THIS RELEVANT TO REFUSAL OF EXTENSIN OF TIME?
Case Rating: *
Yes, the impugned evidence of the Respondent's witnesses can be relevant to the refusal of an extension of time if it directly impacts the fairness and integrity of the proceedings. Here’s how you can frame it:
- Relevance to Extension of Time:
- Detail how the ET's handling of the Respondent's witnesses' evidence affected the overall fairness of the proceedings.
- Explain that the ET's potential failure to properly assess whether the witnesses were misleading or mistaken contributed to the unjust handling of your case.
- Highlight that these errors are critical to understanding why an extension of time is necessary to ensure a fair opportunity to address these procedural and substantive issues.
Would you like more specific guidance on integrating this point into your challenge?
Yes, the impugned evidence of the Respondent's witnesses can be relevant to the refusal of an extension of time if it directly impacts the fairness and integrity of the proceedings. Here’s how you can frame it:
- Relevance to Extension of Time:
- Detail how the ET's handling of the Respondent's witnesses' evidence affected the overall fairness of the proceedings.
- Explain that the ET's potential failure to properly assess whether the witnesses were misleading or mistaken contributed to the unjust handling of your case.
- Highlight that these errors are critical to understanding why an extension of time is necessary to ensure a fair opportunity to address these procedural and substantive issues.
Would you like more specific guidance on integrating this point into your challenge?
YES, PLEASE.
Case Rating: *
Here’s how you can integrate the issue of the impugned evidence of the Respondent's witnesses into your challenge for the refusal of the extension of time:
---
Errors in Communication and Delays in Receiving Written Reasons:
- The Employment Tribunal sent the written reasons for its decision to the wrong email address, causing significant delays in my ability to appeal.
- The Tribunal had my correct email address on file, as shown in [insert evidence, e.g., previous correspondence or orders sent to the correct email].
- This error occurred multiple times: one ET sent an "Unless Order" to the wrong email in January * and written reasons in August *. Another ET sent written reasons to the incorrect email in June *.
- These errors appear deliberate, as the Tribunal had no reason to use an incorrect address, and the wrong email originated from the ET/Respondent, affecting multiple appeals, including the June * matter.
- As a result, these repeated administrative errors have severely impacted three appeals and continue to impede my ability to seek justice.
Procedural Errors:
- The ET erred in conflating its orders regarding the admissibility of evidence with orders regarding disclosure.
- In relation to the recording and transcript, ET’s Case Management Order of January * stated at [insert specific details or quotes from the order].
Relevance to Extension of Time:
- These errors are not just procedural but directly impact the merits of my case.
- The confusion and delays caused by these errors are critical to understanding why an extension of time is necessary.
Prejudice to You:
- The ET’s errors have caused significant prejudice, including missed deadlines and the inability to present my case effectively.
- Granting an extension would help mitigate these harms and allow for a fair process.
Additional Points:
- The ET failed to take into account relevant considerations in the exercise of its discretion. The Respondent knew what the Claimant said the transcript stated from * December *.
- The Respondent knew of the recording from * January * and were provided with the recordings in February and March * but chose not to make an application to strike out until the Final Hearing.
- The only communication the Respondent provided to the Claimant was an email saying they would amend their Response, and a day before the Final Hearing, the Respondent stated in an email that matters have developed and submissions will be made at the hearing.
- The Claimant asked that the Respondent provide the written submissions to be relied upon, but this was ignored. At the hearing, the Respondent took other action to, in effect, ambush the Claimant, providing no written submissions.
- The Respondent’s unreasonable conduct was relevant in the exercise of discretion.
- My legal representative stopped trading in November *, just before I received the written reasons. She had all the correspondence, which I was unable to retrieve. However, I do have her written submissions prepared on the second day of the final hearing, which were wasted by the Respondent's actions.
- This is another important issue resulting from the ET's error of sending the judgment to the wrong email.
Impugned Evidence of the Respondent's Witnesses:
- The ET erred in the way it treated the impugned evidence of the Respondent’s witnesses.
- The ET mentioned, "In relation to matters in the case where there was no documentary record of any kind, we would now be in difficulty putting out of our minds Ms B’s continuing failure to remember these matters being discussed in the * Aug * meeting."
- If ET thought that the witness was mistaken, an experienced tribunal could disregard this. If the ET thought the witness was deliberately misleading, it should have taken that into account.
- It is unusual for an ET to strike out a claimant’s claim because it considered that the respondent’s witnesses were deliberately misleading on an important matter, evidenced by the claimant’s unreasonable conduct.
- The ET erred in concluding that it could not disregard the matter or failed to consider the possibility that the Respondent’s witnesses were potentially lying to the ET.
Relevance to Extension of Time:
- The ET's mishandling of the Respondent's witnesses' evidence contributed to an unfair proceeding, impacting the overall integrity of the case.
- These procedural and substantive issues are critical to understanding why an extension of time is necessary to ensure a fair opportunity to address these errors.
---
Would you like to include any additional details or need further assistance?
Here’s how you can integrate the issue of the impugned evidence of the Respondent's witnesses into your challenge for the refusal of the extension of time:
---
Errors in Communication and Delays in Receiving Written Reasons:
- The Employment Tribunal sent the written reasons for its decision to the wrong email address, causing significant delays in my ability to appeal.
- The Tribunal had my correct email address on file, as shown in [insert evidence, e.g., previous correspondence or orders sent to the correct email].
- This error occurred multiple times: one ET sent an "Unless Order" to the wrong email in January * and written reasons in August *. Another ET sent written reasons to the incorrect email in June *.
- These errors appear deliberate, as the Tribunal had no reason to use an incorrect address, and the wrong email originated from the ET/Respondent, affecting multiple appeals, including the June * matter.
- As a result, these repeated administrative errors have severely impacted three appeals and continue to impede my ability to seek justice.
Procedural Errors:
- The ET erred in conflating its orders regarding the admissibility of evidence with orders regarding disclosure.
- In relation to the recording and transcript, ET’s Case Management Order of January * stated at [insert specific details or quotes from the order].
Relevance to Extension of Time:
- These errors are not just procedural but directly impact the merits of my case.
- The confusion and delays caused by these errors are critical to understanding why an extension of time is necessary.
Prejudice to You:
- The ET’s errors have caused significant prejudice, including missed deadlines and the inability to present my case effectively.
- Granting an extension would help mitigate these harms and allow for a fair process.
Additional Points:
- The ET failed to take into account relevant considerations in the exercise of its discretion. The Respondent knew what the Claimant said the transcript stated from * December *.
- The Respondent knew of the recording from * January * and were provided with the recordings in February and March * but chose not to make an application to strike out until the Final Hearing.
- The only communication the Respondent provided to the Claimant was an email saying they would amend their Response, and a day before the Final Hearing, the Respondent stated in an email that matters have developed and submissions will be made at the hearing.
- The Claimant asked that the Respondent provide the written submissions to be relied upon, but this was ignored. At the hearing, the Respondent took other action to, in effect, ambush the Claimant, providing no written submissions.
- The Respondent’s unreasonable conduct was relevant in the exercise of discretion.
- My legal representative stopped trading in November *, just before I received the written reasons. She had all the correspondence, which I was unable to retrieve. However, I do have her written submissions prepared on the second day of the final hearing, which were wasted by the Respondent's actions.
- This is another important issue resulting from the ET's error of sending the judgment to the wrong email.
Impugned Evidence of the Respondent's Witnesses:
- The ET erred in the way it treated the impugned evidence of the Respondent’s witnesses.
- The ET mentioned, "In relation to matters in the case where there was no documentary record of any kind, we would now be in difficulty putting out of our minds Ms B’s continuing failure to remember these matters being discussed in the * Aug * meeting."
- If ET thought that the witness was mistaken, an experienced tribunal could disregard this. If the ET thought the witness was deliberately misleading, it should have taken that into account.
- It is unusual for an ET to strike out a claimant’s claim because it considered that the respondent’s witnesses were deliberately misleading on an important matter, evidenced by the claimant’s unreasonable conduct.
- The ET erred in concluding that it could not disregard the matter or failed to consider the possibility that the Respondent’s witnesses were potentially lying to the ET.
Relevance to Extension of Time:
- The ET's mishandling of the Respondent's witnesses' evidence contributed to an unfair proceeding, impacting the overall integrity of the case.
- These procedural and substantive issues are critical to understanding why an extension of time is necessary to ensure a fair opportunity to address these errors.
---
Would you like to include any additional details or need further assistance?
SHOULD THIS GO IN? "The ET notes the suggestion but does not address why it is that it decided to reject the Claimant’s request. The ET erred in failing to address the Claimant’s application and/or failed to provide reasons explaining its decision. The ET appeared to simply ignore the request at ET Reasons. In so doing, it erred. This error led to another error by allowing the Respondent to use this issue to attempt to strike out the Claim, two months later, with the deliberate intention to jeopardise the Final Hearing, without any notice to the Claimant and the ET striking out the Claim."
Case Rating: *
Yes, it should go in as it highlights the procedural error of the ET in failing to address your request and provide reasons, which subsequently impacted your case.
Here’s how you can integrate it into your challenge:
---
Errors in Communication and Delays in Receiving Written Reasons:
- The Employment Tribunal sent the written reasons for its decision to the wrong email address, causing significant delays in my ability to appeal.
- The Tribunal had my correct email address on file, as shown in [insert evidence, e.g., previous correspondence or orders sent to the correct email].
- This error occurred multiple times: one ET sent an "Unless Order" to the wrong email in January * and written reasons in August *. Another ET sent written reasons to the incorrect email in June *.
- These errors appear deliberate, as the Tribunal had no reason to use an incorrect address, and the wrong email originated from the ET/Respondent, affecting multiple appeals, including the June * matter.
- As a result, these repeated administrative errors have severely impacted three appeals and continue to impede my ability to seek justice.
Procedural Errors:
- The ET erred in conflating its orders regarding the admissibility of evidence with orders regarding disclosure.
- In relation to the recording and transcript, ET’s Case Management Order of January * stated [insert specific details or quotes from the order].
Relevance to Extension of Time:
- These errors are not just procedural but directly impact the merits of my case.
- The confusion and delays caused by these errors are critical to understanding why an extension of time is necessary.
Prejudice to You:
- The ET’s errors have caused significant prejudice, including missed deadlines and the inability to present my case effectively.
- Granting an extension would help mitigate these harms and allow for a fair process.
Additional Points:
- The ET failed to take into account relevant considerations in the exercise of its discretion. The Respondent knew what the Claimant said the transcript stated from * December *.
- The Respondent knew of the recording from * January * and were provided with the recordings in February and March * but chose not to make an application to strike out until the Final Hearing.
- The only communication the Respondent provided to the Claimant was an email saying they would amend their Response, and a day before the Final Hearing, the Respondent stated in an email that matters have developed and submissions will be made at the hearing.
- The Claimant asked that the Respondent provide the written submissions to be relied upon, but this was ignored. At the hearing, the Respondent took other action to, in effect, ambush the Claimant, providing no written submissions.
- The Respondent’s unreasonable conduct was relevant in the exercise of discretion.
- My legal representative stopped trading in November *, just before I received the written reasons. She had all the correspondence, which I was unable to retrieve. However, I do have her written submissions prepared on the second day of the final hearing, which were wasted by the Respondent's actions.
- This is another important issue resulting from the ET's error of sending the judgment to the wrong email.
Impugned Evidence of the Respondent's Witnesses:
- The ET erred in the way it treated the impugned evidence of the Respondent’s witnesses.
- The ET mentioned, "In relation to matters in the case where there was no documentary record of any kind, we would now be in difficulty putting out of our minds Ms B’s continuing failure to remember these matters being discussed in the * Aug * meeting."
- If ET thought that the witness was mistaken, an experienced tribunal could disregard this. If the ET thought the witness was deliberately misleading, it should have taken that into account.
- It is unusual for an ET to strike out a claimant’s claim because it considered that the respondent’s witnesses were deliberately misleading on an important matter, evidenced by the claimant’s unreasonable conduct.
- The ET erred in concluding that it could not disregard the matter or failed to consider the possibility that the Respondent’s witnesses were potentially lying to the ET.
Relevance to Extension of Time:
- The ET's mishandling of the Respondent's witnesses' evidence contributed to an unfair proceeding, impacting the overall integrity of the case.
- These procedural and substantive issues are critical to understanding why an extension of time is necessary to ensure a fair opportunity to address these errors.
Failure to Address Claimant’s Application:
- The ET notes the suggestion but does not address why it decided to reject the Claimant’s request.
- The ET erred in failing to address the Claimant’s application and/or provide reasons explaining its decision. The ET appeared to simply ignore the request in its Reasons.
- This error led to another error by allowing the Respondent to use this issue to attempt to strike out the Claim two months later, with the deliberate intention to jeopardise the Final Hearing, without any notice to the Claimant, resulting in the ET striking out the Claim.
---
Would you like any further assistance?
Yes, it should go in as it highlights the procedural error of the ET in failing to address your request and provide reasons, which subsequently impacted your case.
Here’s how you can integrate it into your challenge:
---
Errors in Communication and Delays in Receiving Written Reasons:
- The Employment Tribunal sent the written reasons for its decision to the wrong email address, causing significant delays in my ability to appeal.
- The Tribunal had my correct email address on file, as shown in [insert evidence, e.g., previous correspondence or orders sent to the correct email].
- This error occurred multiple times: one ET sent an "Unless Order" to the wrong email in January * and written reasons in August *. Another ET sent written reasons to the incorrect email in June *.
- These errors appear deliberate, as the Tribunal had no reason to use an incorrect address, and the wrong email originated from the ET/Respondent, affecting multiple appeals, including the June * matter.
- As a result, these repeated administrative errors have severely impacted three appeals and continue to impede my ability to seek justice.
Procedural Errors:
- The ET erred in conflating its orders regarding the admissibility of evidence with orders regarding disclosure.
- In relation to the recording and transcript, ET’s Case Management Order of January * stated [insert specific details or quotes from the order].
Relevance to Extension of Time:
- These errors are not just procedural but directly impact the merits of my case.
- The confusion and delays caused by these errors are critical to understanding why an extension of time is necessary.
Prejudice to You:
- The ET’s errors have caused significant prejudice, including missed deadlines and the inability to present my case effectively.
- Granting an extension would help mitigate these harms and allow for a fair process.
Additional Points:
- The ET failed to take into account relevant considerations in the exercise of its discretion. The Respondent knew what the Claimant said the transcript stated from * December *.
- The Respondent knew of the recording from * January * and were provided with the recordings in February and March * but chose not to make an application to strike out until the Final Hearing.
- The only communication the Respondent provided to the Claimant was an email saying they would amend their Response, and a day before the Final Hearing, the Respondent stated in an email that matters have developed and submissions will be made at the hearing.
- The Claimant asked that the Respondent provide the written submissions to be relied upon, but this was ignored. At the hearing, the Respondent took other action to, in effect, ambush the Claimant, providing no written submissions.
- The Respondent’s unreasonable conduct was relevant in the exercise of discretion.
- My legal representative stopped trading in November *, just before I received the written reasons. She had all the correspondence, which I was unable to retrieve. However, I do have her written submissions prepared on the second day of the final hearing, which were wasted by the Respondent's actions.
- This is another important issue resulting from the ET's error of sending the judgment to the wrong email.
Impugned Evidence of the Respondent's Witnesses:
- The ET erred in the way it treated the impugned evidence of the Respondent’s witnesses.
- The ET mentioned, "In relation to matters in the case where there was no documentary record of any kind, we would now be in difficulty putting out of our minds Ms B’s continuing failure to remember these matters being discussed in the * Aug * meeting."
- If ET thought that the witness was mistaken, an experienced tribunal could disregard this. If the ET thought the witness was deliberately misleading, it should have taken that into account.
- It is unusual for an ET to strike out a claimant’s claim because it considered that the respondent’s witnesses were deliberately misleading on an important matter, evidenced by the claimant’s unreasonable conduct.
- The ET erred in concluding that it could not disregard the matter or failed to consider the possibility that the Respondent’s witnesses were potentially lying to the ET.
Relevance to Extension of Time:
- The ET's mishandling of the Respondent's witnesses' evidence contributed to an unfair proceeding, impacting the overall integrity of the case.
- These procedural and substantive issues are critical to understanding why an extension of time is necessary to ensure a fair opportunity to address these errors.
Failure to Address Claimant’s Application:
- The ET notes the suggestion but does not address why it decided to reject the Claimant’s request.
- The ET erred in failing to address the Claimant’s application and/or provide reasons explaining its decision. The ET appeared to simply ignore the request in its Reasons.
- This error led to another error by allowing the Respondent to use this issue to attempt to strike out the Claim two months later, with the deliberate intention to jeopardise the Final Hearing, without any notice to the Claimant, resulting in the ET striking out the Claim.
---
Would you like any further assistance?
PLEASE CASN YOU TELL ME ABOUT THIS ISSUE AS ITS ABOUT MY LEGAL REP APPLYING TO ET * MONTHS BEFORE THE FINAL HEARING ASKING TO USE MY AUDIO -Failure to Address Claimant’s Application.
Case Rating: *
It appears that your legal representative applied to the Employment Tribunal (ET) requesting permission to use audio evidence two months before the final hearing, yet the ET failed to address this application. Here are some key points:
- Failure to Address Application: The ET must consider and respond to all applications made by the parties. Ignoring or failing to address an application is a procedural error.
- Impact on Case: The failure to address your application for audio evidence could significantly impact your ability to present your case effectively, potentially denying you a fair hearing.
- Grounds for Appeal: This procedural error can be a strong ground for appealing the ET's decision, arguing that it affected the fairness of the hearing and your ability to fully present your case.
Would you like more detailed guidance on how to draft your appeal regarding this issue?
It appears that your legal representative applied to the Employment Tribunal (ET) requesting permission to use audio evidence two months before the final hearing, yet the ET failed to address this application. Here are some key points:
- Failure to Address Application: The ET must consider and respond to all applications made by the parties. Ignoring or failing to address an application is a procedural error.
- Impact on Case: The failure to address your application for audio evidence could significantly impact your ability to present your case effectively, potentially denying you a fair hearing.
- Grounds for Appeal: This procedural error can be a strong ground for appealing the ET's decision, arguing that it affected the fairness of the hearing and your ability to fully present your case.
Would you like more detailed guidance on how to draft your appeal regarding this issue?
YES, PLEASE.
Case Rating: *
Here’s how you can draft your challenge regarding the ET's failure to address your legal representative's application to use audio evidence:
---
Errors in Communication and Delays in Receiving Written Reasons:
- The Employment Tribunal sent the written reasons for its decision to the wrong email address, causing significant delays in my ability to appeal.
- The Tribunal had my correct email address on file, as shown in [insert evidence, e.g., previous correspondence or orders sent to the correct email].
- This error occurred multiple times: one ET sent an "Unless Order" to the wrong email in January * and written reasons in August *. Another ET sent written reasons to the incorrect email in June *.
- These errors appear deliberate, as the Tribunal had no reason to use an incorrect address, and the wrong email originated from the ET/Respondent, affecting multiple appeals, including the June * matter.
- As a result, these repeated administrative errors have severely impacted three appeals and continue to impede my ability to seek justice.
Procedural Errors:
- The ET erred in conflating its orders regarding the admissibility of evidence with orders regarding disclosure.
- In relation to the recording and transcript, ET’s Case Management Order of January * stated [insert specific details or quotes from the order].
Relevance to Extension of Time:
- These errors are not just procedural but directly impact the merits of my case.
- The confusion and delays caused by these errors are critical to understanding why an extension of time is necessary.
Prejudice to You:
- The ET’s errors have caused significant prejudice, including missed deadlines and the inability to present my case effectively.
- Granting an extension would help mitigate these harms and allow for a fair process.
Additional Points:
- The ET failed to take into account relevant considerations in the exercise of its discretion. The Respondent knew what the Claimant said the transcript stated from * December *.
- The Respondent knew of the recording from * January * and were provided with the recordings in February and March * but chose not to make an application to strike out until the Final Hearing.
- The only communication the Respondent provided to the Claimant was an email saying they would amend their Response, and a day before the Final Hearing, the Respondent stated in an email that matters have developed and submissions will be made at the hearing.
- The Claimant asked that the Respondent provide the written submissions to be relied upon, but this was ignored. At the hearing, the Respondent took other action to, in effect, ambush the Claimant, providing no written submissions.
- The Respondent’s unreasonable conduct was relevant in the exercise of discretion.
- My legal representative stopped trading in November *, just before I received the written reasons. She had all the correspondence, which I was unable to retrieve. However, I do have her written submissions prepared on the second day of the final hearing, which were wasted by the Respondent's actions.
- This is another important issue resulting from the ET's error of sending the judgment to the wrong email.
Impugned Evidence of the Respondent's Witnesses:
- The ET erred in the way it treated the impugned evidence of the Respondent’s witnesses.
- The ET mentioned, "In relation to matters in the case where there was no documentary record of any kind, we would now be in difficulty putting out of our minds Ms B’s continuing failure to remember these matters being discussed in the * Aug * meeting."
- If ET thought that the witness was mistaken, an experienced tribunal could disregard this. If the ET thought the witness was deliberately misleading, it should have taken that into account.
- It is unusual for an ET to strike out a claimant’s claim because it considered that the respondent’s witnesses were deliberately misleading on an important matter, evidenced by the claimant’s unreasonable conduct.
- The ET erred in concluding that it could not disregard the matter or failed to consider the possibility that the Respondent’s witnesses were potentially lying to the ET.
Relevance to Extension of Time:
- The ET's mishandling of the Respondent's witnesses' evidence contributed to an unfair proceeding, impacting the overall integrity of the case.
- These procedural and substantive issues are critical to understanding why an extension of time is necessary to ensure a fair opportunity to address these errors.
Failure to Address Claimant’s Application:
- The ET notes the suggestion but does not address why it decided to reject the Claimant’s request.
- The ET erred in failing to address the Claimant’s application and/or provide reasons explaining its decision. The ET appeared to simply ignore the request in its Reasons.
- This error led to another error by allowing the Respondent to use this issue to attempt to strike out the Claim two months later, with the deliberate intention to jeopardise the Final Hearing, without any notice to the Claimant, resulting in the ET striking out the Claim.
- My legal representative applied to the ET two months before the final hearing, requesting permission to use audio evidence, which was critical for my case. The ET failed to address this application, impacting my ability to present crucial evidence.
---
Would you like any further assistance?
Here’s how you can draft your challenge regarding the ET's failure to address your legal representative's application to use audio evidence:
---
Errors in Communication and Delays in Receiving Written Reasons:
- The Employment Tribunal sent the written reasons for its decision to the wrong email address, causing significant delays in my ability to appeal.
- The Tribunal had my correct email address on file, as shown in [insert evidence, e.g., previous correspondence or orders sent to the correct email].
- This error occurred multiple times: one ET sent an "Unless Order" to the wrong email in January * and written reasons in August *. Another ET sent written reasons to the incorrect email in June *.
- These errors appear deliberate, as the Tribunal had no reason to use an incorrect address, and the wrong email originated from the ET/Respondent, affecting multiple appeals, including the June * matter.
- As a result, these repeated administrative errors have severely impacted three appeals and continue to impede my ability to seek justice.
Procedural Errors:
- The ET erred in conflating its orders regarding the admissibility of evidence with orders regarding disclosure.
- In relation to the recording and transcript, ET’s Case Management Order of January * stated [insert specific details or quotes from the order].
Relevance to Extension of Time:
- These errors are not just procedural but directly impact the merits of my case.
- The confusion and delays caused by these errors are critical to understanding why an extension of time is necessary.
Prejudice to You:
- The ET’s errors have caused significant prejudice, including missed deadlines and the inability to present my case effectively.
- Granting an extension would help mitigate these harms and allow for a fair process.
Additional Points:
- The ET failed to take into account relevant considerations in the exercise of its discretion. The Respondent knew what the Claimant said the transcript stated from * December *.
- The Respondent knew of the recording from * January * and were provided with the recordings in February and March * but chose not to make an application to strike out until the Final Hearing.
- The only communication the Respondent provided to the Claimant was an email saying they would amend their Response, and a day before the Final Hearing, the Respondent stated in an email that matters have developed and submissions will be made at the hearing.
- The Claimant asked that the Respondent provide the written submissions to be relied upon, but this was ignored. At the hearing, the Respondent took other action to, in effect, ambush the Claimant, providing no written submissions.
- The Respondent’s unreasonable conduct was relevant in the exercise of discretion.
- My legal representative stopped trading in November *, just before I received the written reasons. She had all the correspondence, which I was unable to retrieve. However, I do have her written submissions prepared on the second day of the final hearing, which were wasted by the Respondent's actions.
- This is another important issue resulting from the ET's error of sending the judgment to the wrong email.
Impugned Evidence of the Respondent's Witnesses:
- The ET erred in the way it treated the impugned evidence of the Respondent’s witnesses.
- The ET mentioned, "In relation to matters in the case where there was no documentary record of any kind, we would now be in difficulty putting out of our minds Ms B’s continuing failure to remember these matters being discussed in the * Aug * meeting."
- If ET thought that the witness was mistaken, an experienced tribunal could disregard this. If the ET thought the witness was deliberately misleading, it should have taken that into account.
- It is unusual for an ET to strike out a claimant’s claim because it considered that the respondent’s witnesses were deliberately misleading on an important matter, evidenced by the claimant’s unreasonable conduct.
- The ET erred in concluding that it could not disregard the matter or failed to consider the possibility that the Respondent’s witnesses were potentially lying to the ET.
Relevance to Extension of Time:
- The ET's mishandling of the Respondent's witnesses' evidence contributed to an unfair proceeding, impacting the overall integrity of the case.
- These procedural and substantive issues are critical to understanding why an extension of time is necessary to ensure a fair opportunity to address these errors.
Failure to Address Claimant’s Application:
- The ET notes the suggestion but does not address why it decided to reject the Claimant’s request.
- The ET erred in failing to address the Claimant’s application and/or provide reasons explaining its decision. The ET appeared to simply ignore the request in its Reasons.
- This error led to another error by allowing the Respondent to use this issue to attempt to strike out the Claim two months later, with the deliberate intention to jeopardise the Final Hearing, without any notice to the Claimant, resulting in the ET striking out the Claim.
- My legal representative applied to the ET two months before the final hearing, requesting permission to use audio evidence, which was critical for my case. The ET failed to address this application, impacting my ability to present crucial evidence.
---
Would you like any further assistance?
THE ET REASONS HAVE MISSED OUT MANY ITEMS - AS THERE WAS A LOT OF NON DISCLOSURE AND NON COMPLIANCE BY THE RESPONDENT. DUE TO THE RIGHT OF DOING A FULL MERITS HEARING WAS SNATCHED AWAY FROM ME - THERE ARE STILL MANY ITEMS MISSING FROM THE ET REASONS, IN ORDER TO KEEP THE FALSE NARRATIVE IN PLACE AND SUPPORT THE FLAWED DECISION OF THE ET. THIS ALL POINTSTO THE THREAT I GOT IN JAN * - DOES THIS THREAT NEED TO GO IN THIS REFUSAL? AS I AM BEING STOPPED FROM HAVING FAIR HEARINGS/CONSIDERATION IN ET & EAT.
Case Rating: *
The threat you received in January * could be relevant if it directly impacts your ability to have fair hearings and considerations in the ET and EAT. It may help demonstrate a pattern of unfair treatment or bias.
Here’s how you can integrate this point into your challenge:
---
Errors in Communication and Delays in Receiving Written Reasons:
- The Employment Tribunal sent the written reasons for its decision to the wrong email address, causing significant delays in my ability to appeal.
- The Tribunal had my correct email address on file, as shown in [insert evidence, e.g., previous correspondence or orders sent to the correct email].
- This error occurred multiple times: one ET sent an "Unless Order" to the wrong email in January * and written reasons in August *. Another ET sent written reasons to the incorrect email in June *.
- These errors appear deliberate, as the Tribunal had no reason to use an incorrect address, and the wrong email originated from the ET/Respondent, affecting multiple appeals, including the June * matter.
- As a result, these repeated administrative errors have severely impacted three appeals and continue to impede my ability to seek justice.
Procedural Errors:
- The ET erred in conflating its orders regarding the admissibility of evidence with orders regarding disclosure.
- In relation to the recording and transcript, ET’s Case Management Order of January * stated [insert specific details or quotes from the order].
Relevance to Extension of Time:
- These errors are not just procedural but directly impact the merits of my case.
- The confusion and delays caused by these errors are critical to understanding why an extension of time is necessary.
Prejudice to You:
- The ET’s errors have caused significant prejudice, including missed deadlines and the inability to present my case effectively.
- Granting an extension would help mitigate these harms and allow for a fair process.
Additional Points:
- The ET failed to take into account relevant considerations in the exercise of its discretion. The Respondent knew what the Claimant said the transcript stated from * December *.
- The Respondent knew of the recording from * January * and were provided with the recordings in February and March * but chose not to make an application to strike out until the Final Hearing.
- The only communication the Respondent provided to the Claimant was an email saying they would amend their Response, and a day before the Final Hearing, the Respondent stated in an email that matters have developed and submissions will be made at the hearing.
- The Claimant asked that the Respondent provide the written submissions to be relied upon, but this was ignored. At the hearing, the Respondent took other action to, in effect, ambush the Claimant, providing no written submissions.
- The Respondent’s unreasonable conduct was relevant in the exercise of discretion.
- My legal representative stopped trading in November *, just before I received the written reasons. She had all the correspondence, which I was unable to retrieve. However, I do have her written submissions prepared on the second day of the final hearing, which were wasted by the Respondent's actions.
- This is another important issue resulting from the ET's error of sending the judgment to the wrong email.
Impugned Evidence of the Respondent's Witnesses:
- The ET erred in the way it treated the impugned evidence of the Respondent’s witnesses.
- The ET mentioned, "In relation to matters in the case where there was no documentary record of any kind, we would now be in difficulty putting out of our minds Ms B’s continuing failure to remember these matters being discussed in the * Aug * meeting."
- If ET thought that the witness was mistaken, an experienced tribunal could disregard this. If the ET thought the witness was deliberately misleading, it should have taken that into account.
- It is unusual for an ET to strike out a claimant’s claim because it considered that the respondent’s witnesses were deliberately misleading on an important matter, evidenced by the claimant’s unreasonable conduct.
- The ET erred in concluding that it could not disregard the matter or failed to consider the possibility that the Respondent’s witnesses were potentially lying to the ET.
Relevance to Extension of Time:
- The ET's mishandling of the Respondent's witnesses' evidence contributed to an unfair proceeding, impacting the overall integrity of the case.
- These procedural and substantive issues are critical to understanding why an extension of time is necessary to ensure a fair opportunity to address these errors.
Failure to Address Claimant’s Application:
- The ET notes the suggestion but does not address why it decided to reject the Claimant’s request.
- The ET erred in failing to address the Claimant’s application and/or provide reasons explaining its decision. The ET appeared to simply ignore the request in its Reasons.
- This error led to another error by allowing the Respondent to use this issue to attempt to strike out the Claim two months later, with the deliberate intention to jeopardise the Final Hearing, without any notice to the Claimant, resulting in the ET striking out the Claim.
- My legal representative applied to the ET two months before the final hearing, requesting permission to use audio evidence, which was critical for my case. The ET failed to address this application, impacting my ability to present crucial evidence.
Threat Impact:
- I received a threat in January *, which appears to be part of a broader pattern of actions aimed at preventing fair hearings and considerations in the ET and EAT.
- This threat, combined with the procedural errors and non-compliance by the Respondent, highlights a concerted effort to obstruct my right to a fair hearing.
- The threat and the administrative and procedural errors have collectively impeded my ability to pursue my appeals effectively, further justifying the need for an extension of time.
---
Would you like any further assistance?
The threat you received in January * could be relevant if it directly impacts your ability to have fair hearings and considerations in the ET and EAT. It may help demonstrate a pattern of unfair treatment or bias.
Here’s how you can integrate this point into your challenge:
---
Errors in Communication and Delays in Receiving Written Reasons:
- The Employment Tribunal sent the written reasons for its decision to the wrong email address, causing significant delays in my ability to appeal.
- The Tribunal had my correct email address on file, as shown in [insert evidence, e.g., previous correspondence or orders sent to the correct email].
- This error occurred multiple times: one ET sent an "Unless Order" to the wrong email in January * and written reasons in August *. Another ET sent written reasons to the incorrect email in June *.
- These errors appear deliberate, as the Tribunal had no reason to use an incorrect address, and the wrong email originated from the ET/Respondent, affecting multiple appeals, including the June * matter.
- As a result, these repeated administrative errors have severely impacted three appeals and continue to impede my ability to seek justice.
Procedural Errors:
- The ET erred in conflating its orders regarding the admissibility of evidence with orders regarding disclosure.
- In relation to the recording and transcript, ET’s Case Management Order of January * stated [insert specific details or quotes from the order].
Relevance to Extension of Time:
- These errors are not just procedural but directly impact the merits of my case.
- The confusion and delays caused by these errors are critical to understanding why an extension of time is necessary.
Prejudice to You:
- The ET’s errors have caused significant prejudice, including missed deadlines and the inability to present my case effectively.
- Granting an extension would help mitigate these harms and allow for a fair process.
Additional Points:
- The ET failed to take into account relevant considerations in the exercise of its discretion. The Respondent knew what the Claimant said the transcript stated from * December *.
- The Respondent knew of the recording from * January * and were provided with the recordings in February and March * but chose not to make an application to strike out until the Final Hearing.
- The only communication the Respondent provided to the Claimant was an email saying they would amend their Response, and a day before the Final Hearing, the Respondent stated in an email that matters have developed and submissions will be made at the hearing.
- The Claimant asked that the Respondent provide the written submissions to be relied upon, but this was ignored. At the hearing, the Respondent took other action to, in effect, ambush the Claimant, providing no written submissions.
- The Respondent’s unreasonable conduct was relevant in the exercise of discretion.
- My legal representative stopped trading in November *, just before I received the written reasons. She had all the correspondence, which I was unable to retrieve. However, I do have her written submissions prepared on the second day of the final hearing, which were wasted by the Respondent's actions.
- This is another important issue resulting from the ET's error of sending the judgment to the wrong email.
Impugned Evidence of the Respondent's Witnesses:
- The ET erred in the way it treated the impugned evidence of the Respondent’s witnesses.
- The ET mentioned, "In relation to matters in the case where there was no documentary record of any kind, we would now be in difficulty putting out of our minds Ms B’s continuing failure to remember these matters being discussed in the * Aug * meeting."
- If ET thought that the witness was mistaken, an experienced tribunal could disregard this. If the ET thought the witness was deliberately misleading, it should have taken that into account.
- It is unusual for an ET to strike out a claimant’s claim because it considered that the respondent’s witnesses were deliberately misleading on an important matter, evidenced by the claimant’s unreasonable conduct.
- The ET erred in concluding that it could not disregard the matter or failed to consider the possibility that the Respondent’s witnesses were potentially lying to the ET.
Relevance to Extension of Time:
- The ET's mishandling of the Respondent's witnesses' evidence contributed to an unfair proceeding, impacting the overall integrity of the case.
- These procedural and substantive issues are critical to understanding why an extension of time is necessary to ensure a fair opportunity to address these errors.
Failure to Address Claimant’s Application:
- The ET notes the suggestion but does not address why it decided to reject the Claimant’s request.
- The ET erred in failing to address the Claimant’s application and/or provide reasons explaining its decision. The ET appeared to simply ignore the request in its Reasons.
- This error led to another error by allowing the Respondent to use this issue to attempt to strike out the Claim two months later, with the deliberate intention to jeopardise the Final Hearing, without any notice to the Claimant, resulting in the ET striking out the Claim.
- My legal representative applied to the ET two months before the final hearing, requesting permission to use audio evidence, which was critical for my case. The ET failed to address this application, impacting my ability to present crucial evidence.
Threat Impact:
- I received a threat in January *, which appears to be part of a broader pattern of actions aimed at preventing fair hearings and considerations in the ET and EAT.
- This threat, combined with the procedural errors and non-compliance by the Respondent, highlights a concerted effort to obstruct my right to a fair hearing.
- The threat and the administrative and procedural errors have collectively impeded my ability to pursue my appeals effectively, further justifying the need for an extension of time.
---
Would you like any further assistance?
Start a new chat