Michael, Author at Employment Tribunal Claims

June 27, 2008advice

Cross-referencing

It is very common, in correspondence or orally, to need to refer to other documents, be they statutes, case-law or evidence. You will very rarely write anything that does not talk about other documents.

It is well worth thinking about how you do this. Writing something like “Such and such was laid out in the company’s policy” can cause problems. Often the policy will be long, and there may even be more than one. Your reader will have to search through pages of documents to find what you are talking about. Even a short submission of a couple of pages, will probably refer to a dozen or so other documents at least, so these problems add up quickly.

June 24, 2008advice

Recorded / special delivery

by MichaelLeave a comment

From time to time it is useful to send documents by recorded or special delivery.

There are normally two reasons to do this: dodgy opponents and important or urgent deliveries.

June 18, 2008advice

Don’t agree mindlessly

by MichaelLeave a comment

Tribunals will often ask you whether you agree with a particular formulation of a point, as a way of checking they understand the issue.

For example, a Judge may ask:

Mr Reed, as I understand this you accept that there was no breach of the statutory dismissal procedures, but say that the hearing was procedurally unfair. Is that right?

This is often a good thing.

June 17, 2008advice

Turning gross into net

by MichaelLeave a comment

In the course of employment litigation you will often have to turn gross salary figures into net.

One way of doing this is to sit down with the tax legislation and work things out. This is boring, time-consuming and difficult.

A much easier solution is to use one of the ready reckoners available online. A good one is
listentotaxman.com.

June 16, 2008advice

Hard and soft numbers

by MichaelLeave a comment

An important part of case preparation is drawing up a schedule of loss. This is a list of the money that you are claiming from your employer.

A schedule should be complete and optimistic, without being silly. It should include everything that, if things go very well indeed, the tribunal might award.

This means that most schedules ask for an amount much higher than you are actually likely to get.

June 12, 2008advice

Feeling the strain

by Michael1 Comment

Some litigants and lawyers act and write as if they’re just a little over caffeinated.

When they object to something they do so ‘firmly’ or ‘vigorously’. When they make submissions they do so ‘passionately’ or ‘strenuously’. They have made ‘heroic’ or ‘valiant’ efforts to comply with the tribunal’s orders.

A little calm goes a long way and is normally more convincing.

June 11, 2008advice

Beyond the past and future (loss)

by MichaelLeave a comment

Schedules of loss normally divide the compensatory award for unfair dismissal into past loss (loss up to the hearing) and future loss (loss that will happen after the hearing). A very similar approach is also taken to equivalent loss in other types of cases

This is a sensible system, because the tribunal will have to think about these things differently. Past loss is about what has actually happened. The tribunal will focus on making findings of fact about the claimant’s earnings post-dismissal and his efforts to mitigate. Future loss, however, is about predicting what will happen next.

There is no rule, however, that these are the only two categories that you can use.

June 10, 2008advice

Misquote

by MichaelLeave a comment

Often, in written submission or oral advocacy, you will need to quote from another text. It might be a document from the bundle or from a piece of case-law.

Most documents will be far too long to quote in full. You should trim them to what is relevant and useful. After all, the full document or case will also be available to the tribunal.

What you must not do, however, is selectively quote to give a misleading impression.

May 23, 2008update

New EAT Practice Direction

by MichaelLeave a comment

The EAT has produced a new practice direction. This replaces the previous (2004) practice direction from the 22nd May 2008. There is no radical change.…

April 17, 2008advice

No comment

by MichaelLeave a comment

Sometimes another party in a case will make an application about something in which you have no stake or interest.

This is most common in cases with many different parties. Often a disclosure debate between the first claimant and the second respondent will be irrelevant to the third claimant.

In this situation it is sensible, if you are copied into the correspondence, to let everyone know you have no comment to make.