From time to time you will see the term “sic” used in a quotation. For example:

Bob Sampson made a decision that no reasonable men [sic] could have reached.

It is used to show that something that appears odd or wrong comes from the original. So, in the example above, “sic” indicates that the confusion between “man” and “men” was in the original, not a mistake by the person quoting it.

“Sic” is widely used in the academic world to avoid ambiguity and confusion. It appears in legal writing for the same reason.

There are good uses and bad uses of this. Precision is important. “Sic” can usefully clarify a quote where necessary.

On the other hand, too many people use “sic” as a goad; to pick up and point out every grammatical or other mistake that they percieve in what the other side writes. This is foolish point scoring. It will upset the other side to no good purpose and make you look like a bully.

If you do not use “sic” you have two options. Firstly, you can correct the original mistake in the quotation. This is normally the best option with spelling mistakes. It is less appropriate when the mistake is one of grammar or wording, since you may be accused of altering the meaning of the quote. The second option is simply to replicate the original, without comment. Where there is no possibility of confusion, this is a perfectly sensible approach.

Finally, if you do use “sic”, be sure you are right. Mistaken pedantry is rarely attractive.

From time to time issues unrelated to the litigation will affect the running of a case. Employment tribunals are particularly prone to this, since most stem from an employee losing their job, which tends to impact many areas of life.

If this happens, you will probably have to offer an explanation, either to support amending case management directions or to justify having failed to comply with them. When you are doing this it is important to explain what if going on and what problems it has caused. Simply saying “I’m having a personal crisis” or something similar will not be effective. The tribunal will want to know the nature and scope of your crisis.

This can be embarrassing and difficult. It is not nice to have to discuss your personal life with the tribunal, or with the respondent. But if you want the tribunal to take it into account, you must tell them what is going on.

This does not mean that you must, or should, share all the gory details. A brief, factual summary of the issue is likely to be the best approach.

If you have a case in the tribunal today, it would be sensible to give them a ring to check it will be going ahead. Tribunal members and staff – even judges – are as likely to be affected by heavy snow as the rest of us.

If you are the one snowed in, get onto the tribunal ASAP and let them know.

As of today (that is to say, for the purposes of employment ending today or later), the maximum award of compensation for unfair dismissal is £66,200, up from £63,000; and the maximum amount of a ‘week’s pay’ for the calculation of statutory redundancy pay and various other awards is £350, up from £330.