Sometimes, when you are cross-examining a witness, you get an answer that you are very pleased with: for example, if you want to discredit the witness, you will be delighted if he says something that be refuted by a document in the bundle. But try not to look too much like a cat pouncing on a mouse.
Most legal documents are written with numbered paragraphs. For example:
- Mr Smith worked for Grindles Ltd as an assembler. He was employed between 21st September 1998 and 3rd December 2007.
- In September 2007 Mr Smith began experiencing difficulties with his left leg, which affected his mobility. His GP diagnosed him with early onset arthritis and referred him to a specialist consultation, Dr Hobbs.
After the respondent’s representative has finished cross-examining your witness, you have the chance to ask some further questions arising out the cross-examination. This is called ‘re-examination.’
Your claim form will be one of the first things that the tribunal reads, so it is an important document. If the story you tell there is not complete, easy to follow, and convincing, you will start at a serious disadvantage.
The tribunal has power to order either party to provide additional information or answers to written questions. Requesting additional details of the other side’s statement…
A telephone conversation, overheard in the FRU office, several years ago:
Mr Smith, you’ve told me what happened. It seems to me that basically you’re saying that your ex-boss is a bit of a git.
Now, I’ve heard what you’ve got to say, and I’ve read the documents. You know what? I agree. He is a bit of a git.
So, what’s going to happen next, is that we’ll turn up to the tribunal on Monday and they’ll hear the case. And I bet they’ll think he’s a bit of a git too.
The problem, Mr Smith, is that being a bit of a git isn’t actually against the law.
Where a term has a specific legal meaning in the employment context avoid using it outside that context. For example, anybody who has been bullied…
Courtroom dramas are filled with beautiful people who, at the slightest provocation, leap to their feet to shout “I object”.
Of course, real life in the employment tribunals is not like this. But a lot of litigation is similar. One side will want to do something, or do it in a particular way, while the other side tries to stop them.
A lot of these arguments are important. Many are not. But people (and lawyers are some of the worse) often fall into the trap of objecting to everything the other side tries to do.
This is foolish for several reasons.
Lawyers often talk about ‘arguments in the alternative’. It is one of those useful bits of jargon that, as well as being a handy shorthand, reveals a way of thinking about a case.
An argument in the alternative is one in the form: A is true, but if A is not true then B is true. This is not nearly as complicated as it sounds. For example: